United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
RYAN HAYGOOD, ET AL.
BRIAN BEGUE, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY.
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE.
the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiffs Ryan Haygood,
DDS and Haygood Dental Care, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
“Dr. Haygood” or the “Haygood
Plaintiffs”): (1) Motion for Reconsideration under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) (Record
Document 241); and (2) Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(5) (Record Document 274). Defendants Ross H.
Dies, DDS, J. Cody Cowen, DDS and Benjamin A. Beach, DDS, A
Professional Dental LLC (hereinafter referred to as
“the Dr. Dies Defendants”) opposed the Motion for
Reconsideration. See Record Documents 266, 272. It
appears that all Defendants oppose the Motion for Extension
of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. See Record
Motion for Reconsideration, the Haygood Plaintiffs ask the
Court to reconsider its Memorandum Ruling and Judgment
(Record Documents 225-226) granting the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion
to Dismiss filed by the Dr. Dies Defendants. The Haygood
Plaintiffs now concede that their Motion for Reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e) was untimely filed and
“acknowledge that their motion . . ., as it applies
to Rule 59(b), may not be considered.”
See Record Document 276 at 2. The Rule 59(e)
Motion for Reconsideration is, therefore, DENIED.
Court must now consider the Motion for Reconsideration under
Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) provides:
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;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
F.R.C.P. 60(b). “Relief under Rule 60(b) is considered
an extraordinary remedy, ” as the “desire for a
judicial process that is predictable mandates caution in
reopening judgments.” Carter v. Fenner, 136
F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). Based on
the showing made in the motion by the Haygood Plaintiffs, the
Court does not find the extraordinary remedy of Rule 60(b)
reconsideration is warranted and the Motion for
Reconsideration pursuant to Rule 60(b) is DENIED.
The Haygood Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Extension of
Time to File a Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) due to their “inadvertent
one-day miscalculation of the time delays within which to
file their Motion for Reconsideration.” ...