Opinion
Case No. 97-4041-SAC.
May 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on plaintiff's motion for payment of interest, and on defendant's motion for satisfaction of judgment.
The court entered judgment in this case on March 19, 2003. (Dk. 271). Prior to that time, the court decided a flurry of motions relating to damages, interest, and calculations of the same. Since that time, no motions have been filed until the present motions, filed over one year later.
Plaintiff's receipt in 2004 of her 2003 W-2 forms from defendant apparently set the wheels in motion for her present motion.
Plaintiff's motion seeks an order for payment of interest on the judgment. Plaintiff contends that "interest is due on prejudgment awarded interest on back pay." Dk. 277, p. 1. Elsewhere in plaintiff's motion, it appears that plaintiff seeks prejudgment interest of 10% on the amount $14,784.36 which she contends is backpay. Plaintiff states that she received payments totaling $14,784.36 in January and April of 2003 as payment for her Thrift Savings Plan ($13,107.52) and received $1,676.84 as reimbursement for an unspecified, wrongfully withheld amount of money. Plaintiff asserts that after the judgment was entered, defendant acknowledged that it owed plaintiff more interest and agreed to take care of it, but has not done so.
Plaintiff's motion fails to reveal any authority in support of it. The court, in consideration of plaintiff's pro se status, will consider the motion as having been filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 60(b).
In general, Rule 60(b) is "`the grand reservoir of equitable power to do justice in a particular case.'" Pierce v. Cook Co., Inc., 518 F.2d 720, 722 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1079 (1976), quoting Radack v. Norwegian America Line Agency, Inc., 318 F.2d 538, 542 (2nd Cir. 1963). Whether to grant a Rule 60(b) motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Pierce, 518 F.2d at 722. Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) should be granted only in extraordinary situations. Id. at 723; Klein v. United States, 880 F.2d 250, 259 (10th Cir. 1989). A movant cannot use Rule 60(b) to reargue the merits of the underlying judgment, and cannot use the Rule as a substitute for appeal. United States v. 31.63 Acres of Land, 840 F.2d 760, 761 (10th Cir. 1988).
The court previously and definitively decided all issues regarding interest, backpay, and other damages. By its judgment over a year ago, the court ordered the defendant to pay plaintiff, within a stated period of time, the amount of $3,918, 17, "without interest, in full satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment in this case." Dk. 271. Defendant now shows the court that it timely paid the court-ordered amount. Dk. 279 and attachments.
This is not such an extraordinary situation which requires relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Even if the court treated plaintiffs' motion in the alternative as one for reconsideration, the result would be the same. Given the history of this case, the court finds it necessary in the interest of finality to bar plaintiff from filing further pleadings herein, absent express permission from the court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for payment of interest (Dk. 277) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall not be permitted to file any other pleadings in this case without permission from the court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion for satisfaction of judgment (Dk. 280) is granted, and the clerk of this court is authorized to satisfy and cancel said judgment of record.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's request for an award of costs for defending plaintiff's motion for interest is denied.