Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Compagnoni

Full title: COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC. Plaintiff, v. JACQUELINE M. COMPAGNONI and UNITED…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

Date published: Sep 12, 2002

Civil Action No. H-00-0702 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 12, 2002)

Opinion

Civil Action No. H-00-0702

September 12, 2002

ORDER

VANESSA D. GILMORE, United States District Judge.

Pending before the Court is United States of America's Motion to Alter or Amend Order Granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant Compagnoni. ( Instrument No. 52). Having considered the applicable law and the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the motion should be DENIED.

Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits a judgment to be altered or amended, while the requirements of Rule 60, provide relief from the entry of judgment. Where there has been no trial by a jury or by the Court, a motion under Rule 59 would not be appropriate. Where there has been no trial, and the motion is filed more than ten days after the judgment has been rendered, the motion must be filed pursuant to Rule 60(b).

In this case, as there has been no trial by jury or by the Court and Defendant's Motion was filed more than ten days after the judgment, thus Defendant's Motion must be considered under Rule 60(b). In order to prevail under this rule, the Defendant must show the Court that the evidence in support of their motion to reconsider was not presented in their original motion due to: "(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence . . .; (3) fraud . . .; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged . . .; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). See also, Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1991).

In their motion, the Defendant does not make any attempt to explain to the Court what provision of Rule 60(b) justifies their request for reconsideration. The district court enjoys considerable discretion when determining whether the movant has satisfied any of the standards set forth under Rule 60(b). Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 173. Failure to properly designate a motion pursuant to this rule could turn the process of seeking reconsideration into an endless chain of motions to reconsider and motions to reconsider the denial of the motion to reconsider, ad infinitum.

Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the record in this case and finds that its order of August 29, 2001 was correct and proper.

The Clerk shall enter this Order and provide a copy to all parties.