Summary
denying a Rule 59(e) motion where the movant called for a judgment to be amended "in the interests of justice"
Summary of this case from Cureton v. Cianbro CorporationOpinion
Civil No. JFM-02-3662
January 20, 2004
MEMORANDUM
This court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, seven employee-related funds, on October 27, 2003. Defendant Kodiak Utility has now filed a motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion will be denied.
Maryland Electrical Industry Health Fund (hereinafter "Health Fund"); Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund (hereinafter "Pension Fund"); Maryland Electrical Industry Severance and Annuity Fund (hereinafter "Severance Fund"); Local Union No. 24, I.B.E. W. Vacation and Holiday Fund (hereinafter "Vacation Fund"); Maryland Electrical Industry Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (hereinafter "Apprentice Fund"); National Electrical Benefit Fund (hereinafter "NEBF"); Local Union No. 24, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (hereinafter "Local Union No. 24").
I.
As a general rule, "reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 2801.1 (1995)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide a standard for determining when a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend should be granted, however, the Fourth Circuit has recognized a number of circumstances in which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted. Id. An earlier judgment may be amended: 1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law, 2) to account for new evidence not available at trial, or 3) to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Id. The Fourth Circuit has also held that relief may be granted under Rule 59(e) to "correct manifest errors of . . . fact upon which the judgment is based." Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789, 797 (1996).
II.
The instant case involves contributions owed by defendant to various employee-related funds. In their motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs set forth the amounts of unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest and attorney's fees owed by defendant. According to the relevant trust agreements and Section 502(g)(2) of the Employee and Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), plaintiffs were entitled to liquidated damages of twenty percent on contributions owed to five of the seven funds. In my opinion granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, 1 observed in a footnote that the liquidated damages requested with regard to these five funds exceeded twenty percent of the unpaid contributions set forth by plaintiffs.
The five funds are as follows: Health Fund, Pension Fund, Severance Fund, Vacation Fund, and NEBF.
Although plaintiffs only provided the amounts of unpaid contributions in their pleadings, Ispeculated that the apparent discrepancy might have been due to the fact that damages were calculated on the basis of not only unpaid contributions, but late contributions as well. Because plaintiffs had offered an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the requested damages, and defendant had not voiced any objections to their accuracy, 1 entered judgment in the amount requested by plaintiffs despite the discrepancy, but suggested that if defendant had any basis for contesting the amounts requested by plaintiffs at this stage of the litigation, it should file a motion to alter or amend within ten days of the entry of judgment.
III.
Defendant filed a motion to alter or amend pursuant to Rule 59(e) on November 6, 2003. In that motion, defendant argues for amendment solely on the basis of what is discussed in the footnote to my opinion granting summary judgment.
Plaintiffs confirmed in their opposition that the aforementioned discrepancy was due to the fact that liquidated damages were assessed on both late paid and delinquent contributions. Defendant did not contest this assertion, and in fact, did not even bother to file a reply.
In his motion, defendant contends that the judgment should be altered "in the interests of justice," but as is apparent from the foregoing, this is not the standard for granting a motion under Rule 59(e). Defendant must show that amendment is necessary to "prevent manifest injustice," to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law, to account for new evidence not available at trial, to correct a clear error of law or to "correct manifest errors of . . . fact upon which the judgment is based." Pacific, 148 F.3d at 403, Small, 98 F.3d at 797. A party seeking a motion for reconsideration must "set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decisions." Decker Coal Co. v. Hartman, 706 F. Supp. 745, 750 (D.Mont. 1988). Defendant cannot make this showing by simply restating observations made by this court in its opinion granting summary judgment.
In fact, the only independent action apparently taken by defendant in drafting this motion was to calculate the "appropriate" amount of liquidated damages. In doing so, defendant did not even take the time to ascertain the proper formulas for calculating liquidated damages owed to the various plaintiffs despite the fact that plaintiffs provided the correct formulas in the complaint. For example, defendant requests that the liquidated damages awarded to Local Union No. 24 be reduced to the proper amount of $5,367.71. However, the judgment entered on October 27, 2003 awarded no liquidated damages to Local Union No. 24, because it is not entitled to the assessment of liquidated damages.
At best, defendant's motion merely raises an argument "which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment." Pacific, 148 F.3d at 403. Rule 59(e) does not authorize relief under these circumstances. Id.
In sum, defendant has not demonstrated any of the required grounds for granting a motion under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, defendant's motion is hereby denied.
A separate order to that effect is being entered herewith.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum, it is, this 20th day of January 2004ORDERED that defendant's motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied.