Gonzalez v. Auto Zone Inc
4:09-cv-04054
S.D. Tex.Jul 27, 2012Background
- On March 16, 2012, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims.
- Plaintiff filed three post-judgment motions under Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(6), and a supplemental brief.
- Defendants filed a consolidated response; Plaintiff replied; motions became ripe for decision.
- Plaintiff sought to withdraw a non-objection to dismissal of Count III (ERISA § 1132(a)(3)); Amara cited but not grounds for relief.
- Court found no newly discovered facts or extraordinary circumstances; arguments largely echoed prior briefing.
- The Court denied all three motions and entered final orders on July 27, 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Rule 59(e) relief apply here? | Plaintiff seeks reconsideration for manifest error/new evidence. | No manifest error or new evidence; arguments were previously available. | Denied |
| Did Rule 60(b)(6) relief apply here? | Extraordinary circumstances justify relief to prevent manifest injustice. | No extraordinary circumstances; relief not warranted. | Denied |
| Whether Amara warrants withdrawal of the non-objection to dismissal of Count III | Amara supports reinstating the equitable claim. | Amara was decided before judgment; no grounds to withdraw non-objection. | Denied |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Plaintiff from altering positions | Position changes should be permissible under Amara rationale. | Judicial estoppel applies due to inconsistent prior positions. | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard for Rule 59(e) reconsideration)
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir. 2005) (requirements for Rule 60(b)(6) relief; extraordinary circumstances)
- Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (duty to protect one's own interests; finality principle)
- Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745 (5th Cir. 2005) (standard for reconsideration and finality)
- United States v. O'Neil, 709 F.2d 361 (5th Cir. 1983) (judicial estoppel and duty to protect interests)
- Cigna Corp. v. Amara, 131 S. Ct. 1866 (2011) (ERISA disclosure remedy; not grounds for relief here)
- RSR Corp. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 612 F.3d 851 (5th Cir. 2010) (judicial estoppel considerations and consistency in positions)
- Hall v. GE Plastic Pac. PTE Ltd., 327 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2003) (limits on shifting positions in litigation)
- Ergo Science, Inc. v. Martin, 73 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 1996) (illustrates protective stance on finality and position changes)