Good et al v. American Water Works Company, Inc. et al, No. 2:2014cv01374 - Document 1311 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that plaintiff's 1308 Motion in Accordance with Rule 59(e) for Clarification and his 1310 Motion to Show Proof of Service in Support of Judgment Entitled are denied. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/28/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Good et al v. American Water Works Company, Inc. et al Doc. 1311 Case 2:14-cv-01374 Document 1311 Filed 07/28/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 40253 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON ROBERT PEREZ, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:16-1606 WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendants. Consolidated with: CRYSTAL GOOD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 2:14-1374 WEST VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are plaintiff Robert Perez’s (1) Motion in Accordance with Rule 59(e) for Clarification, filed June 11, 2020, and (2) Motion to Show Proof of Service in Support of Judgment Entitled, filed June 26, 2020. Plaintiff’s first motion reiterates his contention that he was not fully compensated under the settlement and that Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:14-cv-01374 Document 1311 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 40254 he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court’s June 8, 2020 memorandum opinion and order already denied plaintiff’s previous motion for relief under Rule 59(e), filed on May 20, 2020, in addition to numerous other motions seeking similar relief. Although plaintiff’s latest Rule 59(e) motion was received by the court on June 11, 2020, the document is dated June 7, 2020. The timing and substance of the latest Rule 59(e) motion indicate that plaintiff is simply repeating the same arguments raised in his May 20th motion. Plaintiff has not sought relief from the court’s June 8, 2020 decision, which was entered after plaintiff mailed the instant motion and concluded that he has received his full entitlement under the settlement agreement. Finally, plaintiff’s motion filed on June 26, 2020 attempts to show proof of service in support of relief the court has already denied. Thus, neither motion shows that plaintiff is entitled to further relief. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion in Accordance with Rule 59(e) for Clarification and his Motion to Show Proof of Service in Support of Judgment Entitled be, and they hereby are, denied. 2 Case 2:14-cv-01374 Document 1311 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 40255 The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: July 28, 2020 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.
