Brown v. Kroger Co, 5:23-cv-00874

Plaintiff Juanita Brown filed claims against Kroger Co. for race discrimination under Title VII, age discrimination under ADEA, and workplace injury.
The court previously granted summary judgment to Kroger, dismissing all of Brown's claims with prejudice.
Brown sought relief from the final judgment, claiming new evidence and incomplete discovery, and requested to avoid paying Kroger's costs.
Brown's motion was styled as a Motion for Leave to File an Appeal, but the court treated it as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.
Kroger argued Brown’s motion was untimely, did not present valid grounds, and that costs should still be awarded to Kroger as the prevailing party.
The court considered the sufficiency and relevance of Brown’s purported new evidence and her financial hardship claim regarding costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Relief from Final Judgment (Rule 60(b))	New evidence and incomplete discovery justify reopening case	Motion is untimely; no valid new evidence; claims properly dismissed	Denied; new evidence not material or controlling
Appeal Leave	Seeks permission to file an appeal	Appeal deadline has passed	Denied as untimely
Workers' Compensation Claim	Claim remains unresolved	Claim preempted by state law, already dismissed	No relief; claim dismissed with prejudice
Costs Awarded to Prevailing Party	Financial hardship, pro se status	Presumption in favor of awarding costs; hardship alone insufficient	Costs must be paid by Brown

Fackelman v. Bell, 564 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1977) (explains purpose of a Rule 60(b) motion is to correct obvious errors or injustices, balancing finality of judgments)
Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 (5th Cir. 1985) (establishes strong presumption that prevailing party is awarded costs in civil actions)
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (1981) (interprets Rule 54(d) on awarding costs to prevailing party)