Bateman et al v. Alpine Management and Consulting et al, No. 1:2018cv00094 - Document 64 (D. Utah 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 63 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 12/16/20. (alf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bateman et al v. Alpine Management and Consulting et al FILED Case 1:18-cv-00094-DBP Document 64 Filed 12/16/20 PageID.320 Page 1 of 2 2020 DEC 16 CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT Doc. 64 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 Plaintiffs, HEARING v. Case No. 1:18-CV-94 DBP ALPINE MANAGEMENT AND CONSULTING, LLC; et al., Chief Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead Defendants. On November 2, 2020, the court dismissed this case without prejudice. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiffs request a hearing with the court concerning medical bills. (ECF No. 63.) “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 judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:18-cv-00094-DBP Document 64 Filed 12/16/20 PageID.321 Page 2 of 2 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 for a hearing liberally, it provides no basis to reopen the case. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED. DATED this 16 December 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.
