Mackey v. American Multi-Cinema
24-30562
5th Cir.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Jessica Mackey was injured after tripping on what she alleged to be an uneven sidewalk at an AMC theater in Louisiana.
- Mackey sued AMC, alleging negligence in failing to maintain safe premises or warn patrons about the condition.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AMC, finding Mackey failed to show the sidewalk was unreasonably dangerous; the Fifth Circuit affirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- Mackey first sought to reopen her case based on the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Farrell v. Circle K, claiming it changed the relevant law, but both the district court and Fifth Circuit rejected this argument.
- Mackey then filed a second Rule 60(b) motion, arguing that the Louisiana Supreme Court’s writ denial in Seymour v. Murphy Oil, together with Farrell, justified relief from judgment; the district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
- AMC requested sanctions against Mackey for perceived abuse of the judicial process, but the appellate court declined to impose them, only issuing a warning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should judgment be reopened under Rule 60(b)(6)? | Seymour and Farrell justify relief | Neither decision changes law | No relief; neither case represents change or error |
| Farrell’s impact on premises liability law | Farrell changed summary judgment law | Farrell did not change the law | Farrell not a sufficient legal change for this case |
| Precedential value of Seymour writ denial | Seymour supports extraordinary relief | No precedential value | Writ denial is not precedent or basis for reopening judgment |
| Whether sanctions should be imposed | No frivolous conduct | Mackey's appeals are baseless | No sanctions, but future warning issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743 (5th Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(b) motions grounded in state law)
- Fuhrman v. Dretke, 442 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2006) (law of the case doctrine restricts re-litigation of decided issues)
- Carnival Leisure Indus., Ltd. v. Aubin, 53 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 1995) (appellate reconsideration limited to manifest error or intervening law)
- Ehrlicher v. State Farm Ins. Co., 171 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 1999) (writ denial by state's high court is not precedent)