Drevaleva v. Hayo

Background

The plaintiff asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her claims with prejudice. The court had ordered the claims dismissed on October 26, 2022.

Because more than 150 days had passed without a separate judgment document, the court determined that judgment was deemed entered. The court therefore treated the request as a motion for relief from a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), rather than as a motion under the local reconsideration rule cited by the plaintiff.

Court’s analysis

Rule 60(b) provides a limited way to seek relief from a final judgment and reopen a case. The court stated that the plaintiff’s motion did not satisfy that rule or the local rule concerning a manifest failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments.

The plaintiff relied on a newly submitted 163-page declaration and argued that the court had misunderstood two reasons for a trip described in her 180-page complaint. The court concluded that the allegedly misunderstood facts had no bearing on its conclusion that the claims were barred by res judicata, meaning that the claims could not proceed because of an earlier judgment concerning the matter, or were otherwise subject to dismissal. The plaintiff did not identify any legal error or clearly erroneous finding of a material fact that affected the dismissal.

Disposition

The court DENIES the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The court stated that the case remains closed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.