Opinion
No. 95 Civ. 0742 (JFK), 95 Civ. 10838 (JFK)
June 4, 2002
OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court is a motion by pro se plaintiff Robert J. Devlin ("Devlin") pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) to alter or amend this Court's Opinion and Order of March 14, 2002, granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Transportation Communications International Union and Robert A. Scardelletti and dismissing Plaintiffs' cause of action in its entirety. The Court will treat this application as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) because. Devlin filed it within 10 days of the judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). The motion is opposed and the Court declines to hear oral argument on it.
Devlin bases his motion to alter or amend on principally three theories: "(1) that plaintiffs were denied counsel, (2) that plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to represent themselves, and (3) that the district court failed to make findings and a ruling that would apply the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in [Devlin] et al. v. Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, decided December 6, 2001." Pl.'s Notice of Mot. To Alter or Amend. These arguments are unavailing. Specifically, Devlin's first two arguments fail because, among other things, (1) the Court provided Plaintiffs ample time in which to obtain new counsel after their lawyer's suspension from practice; and (2) the summary judgment motion, which this Court's March 14th Opinion is predicated on, was fully submitted prior to the lawyer's suspension.
Moreover, Devlin's reliance on Devlin v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 274 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2001), is misplaced. As Defendants point out, that case addressed ERISA claims for wrongful reduction in force and fiduciary breach, whereas this Court's March 14th Opinion, which Devlin now seeks to alter or amend, concerned age discrimination and conversion claims. Empire Blue Cross is inapposite, for it concerned neither age discrimination nor conversion.
Because Devlin provides no legal or factual grounds for reopening this action, the Court denies the motion.
SO ORDERED.