Opinion
Civil Case No. 00-40237
December 21, 2001
"I Gave You Everything You Ever Wanted It Wasn't What You Wanted" U2, So Cruel, on Achtung Baby (Island Records 1991).
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "motion for settlement and entry of final judgment" [docket entry 42]. The Court construes this as a motion to amend or alter the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e), the Court concludes that a hearing would not aid substantially in the disposition of this motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall deny Plaintiff's motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on June 25, 2001. In Plaintiff's brief in support of that motion, Plaintiff's final two sentences stated that; "For these reasons, United States Fire Insurance Company isentitled to summary judgment in the amount of $1,575,000 against the City of Warren, as a matter of law. Request for Relief: For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment" (emphasis added).
This Court agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment. On November 6, 2001, this Court entered an order granting Plaintiff summary judgment and ordering "that Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $1,575,000 within thirty (30) days of entry of this order." Simultaneously, this Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. That judgment stated, in relevant part, that "It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, that Plaintiff be awarded costs in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1)."
Plaintiff filed the present motion on November 16, 2001. The crux of Plaintiff's argument is that the Court should amend its judgment of November 6, 2001 to include additional damages, interest, and costs provided by law.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
The Court exercises its sound discretion when considering a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. Nagle Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 175 F.R.D. 251, 253 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Usually, the Court will only grant such a motion if: (1) there is an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence that was previously unavailable surfaces; or (3) there is a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not contend that there was an intervening change in the controlling law or that previously unavailable evidence has surfaced. Thus, the Court construes Plaintiff's argument as focusing on the idea that there is a need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. The Court, however, apprehends no need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
In its brief supporting its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff very specifically stated that it was "entitled to summary judgment in the amount of $1,575,000." The Court agreed that the law was on Plaintiff's side, and the Court then gave Plaintiff precisely what Plaintiff requested in its brief: judgment in the amount of $1,575,000. Therefore, the Court sees no need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice underlying its judgment of November 6, 2001. Simply put, words mean things. When Plaintiff states that it is "entitled to summary judgment in the amount of $1,575,000," it should not be disappointed when the Court awards it summary judgment in the amount of $1,575,000.
The Court was entitled to rely on Plaintiff's brief when it adjudicated the motion. Cf. Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1481 (11th Cir. 1997) (reasoning that the appellee was entitled to rely on the appellant's brief in order to define the scope of the issues at bar); Oken v. Nuth, 64 F. Supp.2d 488, 498 (D. Md. 1999) (same).
The Court also would like to address an argument that seems to be in the subtext of Plaintiff's brief in support of the pending motion: that the judgment entered on November 6, 2001 was somehow not final because, within the judgment itself, there was no dollar figure stating how much Defendant owes Plaintiff. A district court's judgment must be read in conjunction with the relevant order. See U.S. Energy Corp. v. Nukem, Inc., No. 96-1532, 1998 WL 738336, at *4 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 1998). When this Court's judgment and order of November 6, 2001 are read in conjunction, it is crystal clear what this Court's judgment was: Defendant had to pay Plaintiff $1,575,000. This Court's judgment of November 6, 2001 was, therefore, wholly adequate to act as a final judgment.
For the reasons set forth above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's "motion for settlement and entry of final judgment" [docket entry 42] is DENIED.