A Renewed Mind v. Jesse Weatherby, 675 F. App'x 572

Plaintiffs Jerry Jones and A Renewed Mind sued Community Broadcast Group (CBG), Jesse Weatherby, and Novia Communications over the sale/assignment of a television station license, asserting minority-shareholder and related claims.
During settlement, counsel for Novia filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice" which the district court entered; the stipulation stated that counsel for the other parties had consented via email.
Plaintiffs then moved under Rule 60(b), arguing the dismissal with prejudice was a mistake/excusable neglect because they only intended Novia to be dismissed with prejudice (claims against CBG and Weatherby to be without prejudice).
The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, finding the stipulation reflected counsel’s error/choice and was not a Rule 60(b) "mistake" warranting relief.
Jones filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, submitting affidavits (prepared after the Rule 60(b) denial) alleging his counsel never consented to the stipulation; the district court declined to treat those as newly available evidence and denied reconsideration.
Jones appealed the denial of the Rule 59(e) motion; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying both the Rule 60(b) and Rule 59(e) relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(b)(1) relief (for mistake/excusable neglect) should vacate the dismissal with prejudice	Jones: the stipulation was filed by mistake; he only meant Novia to be dismissed with prejudice, so Rule 60(b) relief is warranted	Defendants: the stipulation accurately reflected counsel’s filing and plaintiffs’ litigation choices; Rule 60(b) does not cover deliberate litigation choices/errors	Denied — district court did not abuse discretion; counsel’s error/choice is not a Rule 60(b) "mistake" warranting relief
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Rule 59(e) reconsideration based on post-judgment affidavits alleging lack of consent	Jones: new affidavits show counsel never consented, so reconsideration is warranted	Defendants: affidavits were not new, could have been presented earlier and merely reargue the case	Denied — affidavits were untimely/self-serving; Rule 59(e) may not be used to present evidence that could have been raised earlier
Whether the appeal properly brings up the underlying Rule 60(b) order/judgment	Jones: seeks review of both denials; implies appeal covers underlying denial	Defendants: appeal of Rule 59(e) usually treated as appeal of underlying judgment only; separately, review of Rule 60 order does not revive the underlying judgment	Court: resolved on the merits — no procedural error mattered because no abuse of discretion in either denial

Henness v. Bagley, 766 F.3d 550 (6th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for denial of Rule 60(b) motion)
Park W. Galleries, Inc. v. Hochman, 692 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2012) (Rule 60 does not relieve consequences of deliberate litigation choices)
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Cogswell Props., LLC, 683 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for denial of Rule 59(e) motions)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 1998) (Rule 59(e) cannot be used to re-argue issues or present arguments that could have been raised earlier)
Crown Serv. Plaza Partners v. City of Rochester Hills, 215 F.3d 1325 (6th Cir. 2000) (treatment of appeals that cite only an order disposing of a Rule 59 motion)