Florida Carpenters Regional Council Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation et al, No. 1:2012cv02001 - Document 59 (N.D. Ohio 2013)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order: Lead Plaintiff's Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court's August 9, 2013 Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead is DENIED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/16/13. (LC,S) re 49

Download PDF
Florida Carpenters Regional Council Pension Plan v. Eaton Corporation et al Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Florida Carpenters Regional Council Pension Plan, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Eaton Corporation, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 12 CV 2001 JUDGE PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN Memorandum of Opinion and Order INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court upon Lead Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court’s August 9, 2013 Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead (Doc. 49). This is a securities fraud case. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED. ANALYSIS Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to reconsideration of the Court’s Order based on newly discovered evidence. The Court will not recite the facts of this case. According to 1 Dockets.Justia.com plaintiff, the recent lawsuit filed by former Eaton attorney O’Flaherty constitutes “newly discovered” evidence sufficient to warrant the filing of an amended complaint. Plaintiff argues that allegations contained in the O’Flaherty lawsuit demonstrate that Eaton intentionally and deliberately concealed documents from the Frisby court in 2008. Plaintiff claims that Eaton had an improper motive for terminating O’Flaherty and that these new allegations bear on scienter. The Court rejects plaintiff’s argument and finds that reconsideration is not warranted. As defendants point out, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds that plaintiff failed to adequately plead scienter and causation. The firing of O’Flaherty has no bearing on the Court’s determination regarding scienter. And, although plaintiff purports to point to “new” allegations in the proposed amended complaint that relate to causation, plaintiff makes no argument that these allegations amount to “newly discovered evidence.1” As such, even if the Court were to consider the lawsuit filed by O’Flaherty to be “newly discovered evidence,” relief is not warranted as there is no “newly discovered evidence” related to causation. Regardless, however, the Court finds that the additional allegations regarding the lawsuit filed by O’Flaherty are insufficient to warrant reconsideration. The Court previously held that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead that Eaton engaged in the discovery abuses with 1 The Court notes that this is not a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Rather, this case was dismissed by the Court in its entirety. Thus, plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of either Rule 59 or 60 before relief will be granted. As set forth herein, plaintiff fails in this regard. Regardless, even if the Court were to apply the more generous standard contained in Rule 15(a), the Court finds that an amendment would be futile. 2 the intent to defraud and deceive Eaton’s shareholders. Nothing in the proposed complaint changes this conclusion. Accordingly, an amendment would be futile. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Lead Plaintiff’s Motion Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) for Alteration of or Relief from the Court’s August 9, 2013 Order Dismissing the Complaint with Prejudice and Without the Right to Replead is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Patricia A. Gaughan PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge Dated: 10/16/13 3

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.