United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Columbia Division
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 2, 2017, the Court entered an Order (Doc. No. 178)
and accompanying 28-page Memorandum Opinion (Doc. No. 177),
familiarity with which is assumed. The Court (1) granted
Jennifer Rogers-Etcheverry's Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. No. 136) on all of the claims set forth in Patricia
Kryder's Amended and Restated Complaint, and (2) granted
Etcheverry's Counterclaims for breach of contract and
request for an equitable lien.
has filed a Motion to Alter or Amend. (Doc. No. 182). That
motion, which has been fully briefed by the parties (Doc.
Nos. 183, 184 & 185-1), will be denied.
brings her Motion under Rules 52(b), 59(e) and 60(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Her reliance on Rules 52(b)
and 59(e), however, is misplaced.
52(b) provides that, within 28 days of a final judgment after
a bench trial, a party can request additional findings. Rule
59(e) allows for the filing of a motion to alter or amend
within “28 days after the entry of judgment.”
There was no bench trial in this case, and, as yet, no final
judgment has entered. See CGH Transp., Inc. v. Quebecor
World, Inc., 261 F. App'x 817, 823 n. 10 (6th Cir.
2008) (observing that Rule 59(e) only applies to a final
judgment and is inapplicable where the court merely grants
summary judgment on one or more claims); Kline v.
Archuleta, 309 F.R.D. 91, 93 (D.D.C. 2015) (collecting
cases for the proposition that, because a court does not
engage in fact-finding on a motion for summary judgment, a
52(b) motion is not the appropriate vehicle to alter or amend
a summary judgment ruling).
Rule 60(b), that rule is cited in Kryder's Motion, but
not addressed in her accompanying Memorandum of Law. The Rule
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order,
or Proceeding. 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 ...