Bateman et al v. Alpine Management and Consulting et al, No. 1:2018cv00094 - Document 62 (D. Utah 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 61 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 11/20/20. (alf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bateman et al v. Alpine Management and Consulting et al Doc. 62 Case 1:18-cv-00094-DBP Document 62 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.315 Page 1 of 2 FILED 2020 NOV 20 PM 1:08 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, NORTHERN DIVISION MAX BATEMAN and CONNIE BATEMAN, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:18-CV-94 DBP ALPINE MANAGEMENT AND Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead CONSULTING, LLC; et al., Defendants. On November 2, 2020, the court dismissed this case and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 60.) Now before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time because they have witnesses. (ECF No. 61.) “After a motion to dismiss has been granted, plaintiffs must first reopen the case pursuant to a motion under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) ….” Glenn v. First Nat'l Bank in Grand Junction, 868 F.2d 368, 371 (10th Cir. 1989). Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court “may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” where the party shows: “(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); [or] (6) any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Whether excusable neglect exists is “‘at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.’” Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 856 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Bunswick Ass'n Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). To find excusable neglect, courts weigh a number of factors, including: “‘the danger of prejudice to the [opposing party], the length of the delay and its potential impact on Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-00094-DBP Document 62 Filed 11/20/20 PageID.316 Page 2 of 2 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.’” Id. (citations omitted). None of these factors weigh in favor of reopening this case. Construing Plaintiffs’ pro se motion liberally, it provides no basis to reopen the case. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. DATED this 20 November 2020. Dustin B. Pead United States Magistrate Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
