United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
THE FORD PLANTATION CLUB, INC. and THE FORD PLANTATION ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants,
MICHAEL MCKAY, Individually and as Trustee of the TARA HILL I REVOCABLE TRUST, Defendants and Counter-Claimants.
WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration.
(Doc. 49.) After carefully reviewing Defendants' motion
and the record in this case, the Court can find no reason to
disturb its prior order. Accordingly, Defendants' motion
their motion, Defendants request that this Court reconsider
its order granting summary judgment to Plaintiffs (Doc. 46)
on the grounds that Defendants "were unaware of the
Court's Order of January 11, 2019 (Document 41) or the
pending motions for summary judgment (Documents 42 and
43)." (Doc. 49 at 1.) Defendants contend that they did
not receive e-mail notification of these filings.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), this Court may
relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the
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;
6) any other reason that justifies relief.
argue that reconsideration should be granted under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 60 (b) (1) or (6) because the
electronic filing and notification system ("ECF")
did not provide notice to Defendants of the pending motions.
(Doc. 4 9 at 3.) Plaintiffs oppose reconsideration and argue
that the pleadings were served in accordance with the law
through the ECF system, that Defendants' alleged failure
to receive notice does not rise to the standard required in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and that Defendants'
failure to check the docket for nearly a year is not
justified and excusable. (Doc. 51 at 1-3.)
Court finds reconsideration unwarranted in this case.
"Excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) is an equitable
inquiry turning on¶all relevant
circumstances,' and the pertinent factors include
'the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the
length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial
proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it
was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether
the movant acted in good faith.'" Grant v.
Pottinger-Gibson, 725 Fed.Appx. 772, 775 (11th Cir.
2018) (quoting Cheney v. Anchor Glass Container
Corp., 71 F.3d 848, 850 (11th Cir. 1996)).
the first factor, reconsideration of the order granting
summary judgment to plaintiffs would prejudice Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs filed the motions for summary judgment on March 4,
2019. (Doc. 42; Doc. 43). This Court did not enter an order
on those motions until December 3, 2019, nearly nine months
later. As to the length of the delay and its potential impact
on judicial proceedings, this action has been pending since
2017 and the motions for summary judgment were pending for
nearly nine months. Granting the order for reconsideration
would further delay the final resolution of this action
explanation of the delay, Defendants claim that they did not
receive any ECF notification of the filings. (Doc. 49 at 3.)
The ECF filing records show that notice was electronically
sent to: email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com
for Documents 41, 42, and 43. This Court's review of the
docket shows that e-mail notifications were successfully
delivered to these e-mail addresses. Additionally, Plaintiffs
have stated in their response brief that they received all
ECF notifications of these documents to the e-mail addresses
they have listed for service. (Doc. 51 at 2.} Thus, other
than attaching a copy of Defendants' electronic reading
file for this case, Defendants' have not substantiated
their assertions that they did not receive the ECF
notifications. Moreover, Defendants acknowledge that they
have received ECF notifications for other filings in this
action and have not provided ...