United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Vernon Freeman's
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint
February 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Complaint , claiming
Defendant Willie A. Watkins Funeral Home of Riverdale, Inc.,
a domestic for-profit corporation in the business of
providing funeral-home services, violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq.
(“FLSA”), by failing to promptly pay Plaintiff
his minimum wages (Counts One and Two). (Compl.  ¶
1). Plaintiff also asserted a breach-of-contract claim (Count
April 22, 2016, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint, arguing that Plaintiff failed to state a claim,
that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, and that
the Complaint does not comply with the pleading requirements
under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ().
January 5, 2017, the Court granted Defendant's motion,
and on January 6, 2017, judgment was entered, and the action
was dismissed. (, ).
January 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion .
complaint is dismissed, the right to amend under Rule 15(a)
terminates. Czeremcha v. Int'l Ass'n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d
1552, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984); Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic
Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010)
(“Rule 15(a), by its plain language, governs amendment
of pleadings before judgment is entered.”); U.S. ex
rel. Atkins v. McInteer, 470 F.3d 1350, 1361 n.22 (11th
Cir. 2006) (“Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) has no application
once the district court has dismissed the complaint and
entered final judgment for the defendant.”).
“Post-judgment, the Plaintiff may seek leave to amend
if he is granted relief under Rule 59(e) or rule
60(b)(6).” McInteer, 470 F.3d at 1361 n.22.
Grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion consist of (1)
newly-discovered evidence or (2) correcting manifest errors
of law or fact. Jacobs, 626 F.3d at 1344. A Rule
59(e) motion may not be used to “relitigate old matters
or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have
been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Frantz
v. Walled, 513 Fed.Appx. 815, 822 (11th Cir. 2013).
“In practice, because of the narrow purposes for which
they are intended, Rule 59(e) motions are typically
denied.” 11 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995).
asserts that, “in light of the liberal policy of
allowing for amendments, . . . motions for leave to amend
complaints should be liberally granted when necessary in the
interests of justice.” ( at 3). Plaintiff's
motion fails because Rule 15 is not applicable after the
action has been dismissed. See Czeremcha, 724 F.2d
at 1556. Plaintiff, instead, must first show reopening the
case is appropriate pursuant to Rule 59(e). Pittman v.
Alabama Dep't of Pub. Safety, Civ. A. No.
12-0347-WS-C, 2012 WL 4760864, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Oct. 4, 2012)
(“Rather than invoking the well-worn proposition that
leave to amend is freely given in the interests of justice,
[Plaintiff] must first show that reopen[ing] is appropriate
pursuant to Rule 59(e), and that the interests favoring
reopen[ing] outweigh competing considerations of protecting
the finality of judgments and the expeditious termination of
Plaintiff must first file a motion under Rule 59(e), the
Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a Rule 59(e) motion
for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal order.
“A party may move for reconsideration only when one of
the following has occurred: ‘an intervening change in
controlling law, the availability of new evidence, [or] the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.'” Vidinliev v. Carey Int'l,
Inc., No. 1:07-CV762-TWT, 2008 WL 5459335, at *1
(N.D.Ga. Dec. 15, 2008). Plaintiff does not assert any of
these discrete categories that might permit reconsideration
of the Court's January 5, 2017, Order. Because Plaintiff
has not satisfied that standard, the Court denies
Plaintiff's Motion. See Pittman, 2012 WL
4760864, at *2; see also In re Owens, 483 B.R. 262,
267 (Bankr. N.D.Ga. 2012).