Opinion
Case No. 4:01-cv-34.
December 17, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 26, 2001, this court issued its opinion and judgment in favor of defendants upon all plaintiff's claims, which was entered on the docket on October 30, 2001. Plaintiff's lawsuit stemmed from a decision by defendant Fortis declining to pay two weeks of short-term disability benefits to plaintiff. On December 5, 2001, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's judgment. (docket # 49). On the same day, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal. (docket # 48). For the reasons set forth below, both motions will be denied.
1.
Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states the general rule that a notice of appeal must be filed with the district court clerk within 30 days after entry of judgment. Plaintiff filed her motion for reconsideration and her motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal on December 5, 2001, more than 30 after entry of judgment. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration cannot be considered a time-tolling motion under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it was filed well beyond the 10 days allowed for such a motion. See Cockrel v. Shelby County Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1047 (6th Cir. 2001); Rhoden v. Campbell, 153 F.3d 773, 774 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1007 (1999). As a Rule 60 motion, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is not time-tolling. See Clark v. NBD Bank, N.A., No. 99-1757, 2001 WL 180971, at * 4 (6th Cir. Feb. 15, 2001) (Batchelder, J., concurring in judgment) (quoting Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi)). Plaintiff has not addressed, much less carried her burden under Rule 4(a)(5)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure of showing "excusable neglect or good cause." See Goode v. Winkler, 252 F.3d 242, 244 (2d Cir. 2001); Amatangelo v. Borough of Donora, 212 F.3d 776, 779 (3d Cir. 2000) (district court should not grant an extension absent a showing of good cause or excusable neglect); Cf. Hayes v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 00-6257, 2001 WL 111654, at * 2 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2001) (time limit of Rule 4(a)(5)(A) "strictly enforced" and finding it unnecessary to address excusable neglect or good cause requirements of the Rule). Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal will be denied.
2.
In its recent decision in Jinks v. Allied Signal, Inc., 250 F.3d 381, 385 (6th Cir. 2001), the Sixth Circuit reemphasized the longstanding rule that a party seeking relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) has the burden of demonstrating that the facts of its case fall within one of the enumerated reasons contained in Rule 60(b). Jinks, 250 F.3d at 385 (citing Lewis v. Alexander, 987 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir. 1993)). "Rule 60(b) does not allow a defeated litigant a second chance to convince the court to rule in his or her favor by presenting new explanations, legal theories or proof." Jinks, 250 F.3d at 385. Plaintiff seeks relief from judgment on the basis of "mistake" under Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiff's motion is virtually unintelligible, but she does make it clear that she believes the court was somehow mistaken in its legal analysis. Upon review, the court finds no legal basis for disturbing its judgment. Therefore, Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion (docket # 49) will be denied.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the court's judgment (docket # 99), construed as a motion for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), be and hereby is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for an extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal (docket # 48) be and hereby is DENIED.