United States District Court, S.D. Florida
BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
(“Plaintiff”) Renewed Motion to Re-open Case,
Alternative Motion for Reconsideration of Denial of Motion to
Re-open Case, and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, ECF No.
, (“Motion”), filed on August 9, 2019. The
Court has carefully reviewed the Motion, the opposing and
supporting submissions, the record in this case, and the
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted in part and
denied in part.
with the background of this case is assumed. On February 25,
2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Default
Judgment against Defendant Gilda Rizzi (“Rizzi”).
ECF No. . Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiff's
request that it be discharged from all further liability as
to Rizzi for any and all claims for the Basic Life Insurance
(“BLI”) benefits resulting from Roy Prewitt's
(“Decedent”) death. However, the Court denied the
Motion to the extent that it requested the discharge of
General Electric and the Plan from any further liability as
to Rizzi based upon the failure to allege irreparable harm.
See ECF No. . On Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration, on April 24, 2019, the Court amended the
Default Judgment to reflect that the GE Basic Life Insurance
Plan (“Plan”) was discharged from all further
liability as to Rizzi for any and all claims for the BLI
benefits resulting from Decedent's death. See
ECF No. . On June 26, 2019, the Court granted Defendant
Nancy Prewitt's (“Prewitt”) Motion for
Default Judgment on her cross-claim against Rizzi. ECF No.
. That same day, the Court entered a Default Final
Judgment in favor of Prewitt and against Rizzi and directed
the Clerk to close the case. ECF No.  (“Default
previously filed a motion to re-open this case for similar
reasons as those set forth in the instant Motion, ECF No.
, which the Court denied on procedural grounds, ECF No.
. Plaintiff's instant Motion renews its request that
the Court re-open this case pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 59 or 60 because the Default Final Judgment
closed the case but did not resolve the remaining claim and
counterclaim between Plaintiff and Prewitt. ECF No. .
Prewitt counters that Plaintiff has not cited any statutory
basis for re-opening this case under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59 or 60, nor has it provided any basis for
equitable relief. ECF No. .
initial matter, Rule 59 is inapplicable here because the
instant Motion was filed more than twenty-eight days after
this Court entered the Default Final Judgment. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after
the entry of the judgment.” (emphasis added)).
As such, the Court only examines the Motion's merits
pursuant to Rule 60.
60(a) allows the Court to correct “a mistake arising
from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a
judgment, order, or other part of the record.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Defendant accordingly requests that this
Court re-open the case to correct the mistaken direction in
the Default Final Judgment instructing the Clerk of Court to
close the case, when Plaintiff's claim against Prewitt
and Prewitt's corresponding counterclaim remained
unresolved. ECF No. at 3. The Court agrees that the
Default Final Judgment erroneously ordered that the case be
closed, despite the existence of live, unresolved claims and
counterclaims between Plaintiff and Prewitt. See,
e.g., ECF No.  at 3-10. As such, Plaintiffs request
to re-open this case pursuant to Rule 60(a) is granted, and
the case will be re-opened to allow the parties to continue
to litigate their remaining claims against one another.
it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows
1 Plaintiffs Motion, ECF No. , is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part
2. The Clerk of Court shall RE-OPEN the
3. The parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report,
no later than September 13, 2019, advising
the Court on what issues remain pending between Plaintiff and
Prewitt in this action. Failure to do so will result in the
4. The Court will issue a separate order modifying the
remaining trial and pre-trial deadlines originally set forth
in ECF No. .
5. The alternative request for reconsideration in Plaintiffs
Motion, ECF No. , is