Limon v. DOUBLE EAGLE MARINE, LLC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13236
S.D. Tex.2011Background
- Plaintiffs allege injuries from a 2007 incident where a barge moored to a platform was struck by a boat and the barge was allegedly unlit.
- Companion Litigation (Berryco Barge Line et al.) concerns related claims; Double Eagle allegedly did not move the barge to the platform.
- Plaintiff Limon, Montalvo, and Olivarez filed suit against Double Eagle on Feb 13, 2009; Double Eagle moved for summary judgment on July 30, 2009.
- Court granted summary judgment on Nov 16, 2009 after suspending deadlines for discovery; final judgment issued (Dkts. 16, 17).
- Approximately seven months after judgment, GPS data revealed new AIS data linking MISS JUK’s AIS transponder to MISS SHARLEE; Companion Litigation allowed third-party complaint against Double Eagle on July 28, 2010.
- Plaintiffs moved for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) on Nov 16, 2010, arguing new evidence contradicts the basis for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered evidence warrants relief under Rule 60(b)(2). | Tieman's AIS data link the tug to the incident, creating a material fact. | Evidence is not new; it shows only prior vessel presence, not last movant of the barge. | No; evidence would not have necessarily changed result? (denied relief) |
| Whether plaintiffs exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the new evidence. | Plaintiffs could have hired an expert earlier; discovery was delayed by defendant’s nondisclosures. | Plaintiffs could have pursued GPS data earlier; Double Eagle recently disclosed MISS JUK transponder. | Not reasonable diligence; delay found unreasonable. |
| Whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time. | Disclosures occurred July–August 2010; motion filed November 2010 within a year. | Delay of almost four months after discovery was unreasonable; not timely. | Unreasonable delay; motion denied for untimeliness. |
| Whether relief under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), or (6) is timely and applicable. | Arguments under these subsections mirror 60(b)(2) grounds. | Timeliness and mutual exclusivity limit these subsections; delay remains improper. | Untimely under all cited subsections. |
| Whether any other equities justify relief despite finality concerns. | Finality should yield to justice due to new facts. | Finality and predictability require denying relief. | Equities do not justify relief; motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632 (5th Cir.2005) (balance finality with justice in Rule 60(b))
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir.1981) (final judgments should not be lightly disturbed; equity considerations)
- Bailey v. Ryan Stevedoring Co., Inc., 894 F.2d 157 (5th Cir.1990) (predictability of final judgments; factors for Rule 60(b) relief)
- Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601 (7th Cir.1986) (reasonable time standard for Rule 60(b) motions; extreme nature of one-year limit)
- First RepublicBank Fort Worth v. Norglass, Inc., 958 F.2d 117 (5th Cir.1992) (reasonableness of delay in Rule 60(b) motion; merits-based balance)
- Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 1053 (9th Cir.1981) (meaning of reasonable time in Rule 60(b) analysis)
- Henriquez v. Astrue, 499 F. Supp. 2d 55 (D. Mass.2007) (illustrative of reasonableness analysis in Rule 60(b) timeliness)