Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Due Forni LLC v. Euro Restaurant Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division

November 6, 2014

DUE FORNI LLC, Plaintiff,
EURO RESTAURANT SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a Marra Forni, et al., Defendants.


PAUL W. GRIMM, District Judge.

Plaintiff Due Forni LLC has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend and/or to Reconsider this Court's June 25, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, ECF No. 16, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, granting Defendants Euro Restaurant Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Marra Forni, and Francesco Marra's Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and conversion, and denying Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiff's fraud claims. ECF No. 17.[1] Plaintiff specifically requests that the Court "reconsider its denial of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment... and its decision granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss... Plaintiff's breach of contract claim against Defendant Euro Restaurant Solutions, Inc." Pl.'s Mem. 1. Because Plaintiff has not shown any errors of law or fact or changes in controlling law, presented newly-discovered evidence, or demonstrated excusable neglect or other grounds for relief from the June 25, 2014 Order, Plaintiff's Motion IS DENIED.

Plaintiff moves "[p]ursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's inherent authority." Mot. 1. A party may move to alter or amend a final judgment under Rule 59 within twenty-eight days of the judgment's issuance, or for relief from a final judgment under Rule 60 after more than twenty-eight days have elapsed. See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of So. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-80 (4th Cir. 2008); Knott v. Wedgwood, No. DKC-13-2486, 2014 WL 4660811, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2014). But, Rule 54(b) governs any motion to alter, amend or reconsider an order that is not a final judgment. Cezair v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., No. DKC-13-2928, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2014) (citing Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469-70 (4th Cir. 1991)). Rule 54(b) provides that "any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties... may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). The order Plaintiff asks me to reconsider was an interlocutory order that left Plaintiff's fraud claims pending, and therefore, I will construe Plaintiff's motion as a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration. See Cezair, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1; Fed.R.Civ.P. 1.

The Fourth Circuit has not stated a standard for review of a Rule 54(b) motion, but it has said that, "generally at least, a review of an interlocutory order under Rule 54 is not subject to the restrictive standards of motions for reconsideration of final judgments under Rule 60." Fayetteville Investors, 936 F.2d at 1472; see Am. Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir. 2003) (same). Nor is the standard for Rule 59(e) binding on review under Rule 54. See Am. Canoe Ass'n, 326 F.3d at 514; Cezair, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1. Nonetheless, "courts frequently look to these standards for guidance in considering such motions." Cezair, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1; see Peters v. City of Mt. Rainier, No. GJH-14-955, 2014 WL 4855032, at *3 n.1 (D. Md. Sept. 29, 2014) (looking to Rule 60(b) standard); Harper v. Anchor Pkg. Co., No., 2014 WL 3828387, at *1 (looking to Rule 59(e) standard); Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 552 n.1 (D. Md. 2001) (applying Rule 59(e) standard).

A Rule 59(e) motion "need not be granted unless the district court finds that there has been an intervening change of controlling law, that new evidence has become available, or that there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010). Rule 60(b) provides overlapping, but broader, bases for relief from a court order:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

The Fourth Circuit has stated in dicta that these "rules of constraint... make sense when a district court is asked to reconsider its own order" because "[w]ere it otherwise, then there would be no conclusion to motions practice, each motion becoming nothing more than the latest installment in a potentially endless serial that would exhaust the resources of the parties and the court-not to mention its patience.'" Pinney v. Nokia, Inc., 402 F.3d 430, 452-53 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Potter, 199 F.R.D. at 553); see Shields v. Shetler, 120 F.R.D. 123, 126 (D. Co. 1988) (observing that a motion for reconsideration "is not a license for a losing party's attorney to get a second bite at the apple'").

Plaintiff does not identify any change in controlling law or present previously unavailable factual material bearing on the matter. Rather, Plaintiff argues that it was legal error for the Court to consider Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and for Plaintiff not to have the opportunity to oppose the motion, when its failure to oppose the motion was, in Plaintiff's view, excusable neglect. Plaintiff also contends that the Court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.