United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
JOHN FOUT, NANCY FOUT, J&N MANAGEMENT, LLC and J&N MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiffs,
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT
FREDERICK P. STAMP, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the jury trial of this civil action, the plaintiffs have
filed a motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60. ECF No. 181. The plaintiffs argue that the
judgment should be altered or amended for the following
reasons: (1) the defendant, EQT Production Company
(“EQT”), has a written policy dealing with the
deductions, which is a contradiction to and misrepresents the
oral policy, thereby prejudicing the plaintiffs; and (2) in
order to comply with the laws of West Virginia, specifically
West Virginia Code § 22-6-8, the written policy of EQT
should be followed. Id. at 5-9. The plaintiffs cite
Kay Co., LLC v. EQT Production, Civil
Action No. 1:13-CV-151, and request that this Court
“restore [ ] their correct rental payments.”
Id. at 6, 9.
defendant filed a response in opposition to the motion, in
which it asserts that the plaintiffs are simply dissatisfied
with the jury's verdict in this case and that they are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata from joining
the class and class settlement in Kay Co. ECF No.
183 at 3. The defendant cites the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, explaining that a Rule
60(b)(3) motion should be granted if: “(1) the moving
party has a meritorious defense; (2) the misconduct is proved
by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) the misconduct
prevented the moving party from fully presenting its
case.” Columbia Communications Corp. v. EchoStar
Satellite Corp., 2 Fed.Appx. 360, 366 (4th Cir. 2001)
(citing Shultz v. Butcher, 24 F.3d 626, 630 (4th
Cir. 1994). Id. at 4. The defendant asserts that the
plaintiffs do not meet any of these prongs. Id. at
plaintiffs did not file a reply to the defendant's
response in opposition.
the plaintiffs have not filed their motion or attached
memorandum pursuant to a particular part of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60, this Court will proceed to analyze the
plaintiffs' motion under each part of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that a court
“may correct clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from
oversight or omission.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a); see
also Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358
U.S. 133, 145, 79 S.Ct. 170, 177, 3 L.Ed.2d 172, 26 P.U.R.3d
527 (1958) (“It is axiomatic that courts have the power
and the duty to correct judgments which contain clerical
errors or judgments which have issued due to inadvertence or
mistake.”). “[T]he scope of a court's
authority under Rule 60(a) to make corrections to an order or
judgment is circumscribed by the court's intent when it
issued the order or judgment.” Sartin v. McNair Law
Firm PA, 756 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2014).
have failed to identify any clerical mistake or correction
necessary to conform the judgment to the Court's intent.
Therefore, any request for relief under Rule 60(a) is denied.
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides that a court may, upon
motion or upon such terms as are just, relieve a party from a
final judgment, order, or proceeding for one of the following
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “The extraordinary remedy of
Rule 60(b) is only to be granted in exceptional
circumstances.” Wilson v. Thompson, No.
04-1099, 2005 WL 1607760, at *1 (4th Cir. July 11, 2005)
(unpublished) (citing Compt ...