ELIZABETH A. CLEMONS, DAVID R. KHALIEL, and LARRY W. TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
NORTON HEALTHCARE, INC. RETIREMENT PLAN, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
THOMAS B. RUSSELL, Senior Judge.
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Reconsider. (Docket No. 205.) Defendant moves the Court to reconsider the portion of the Court's Opinion and Order at Docket No. 102 where the Court denied Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. (Docket No. 71.) In that portion, the Court found that the contractual nature of class Plaintiffs' claims dictated that the applicable statute of limitations is fifteen years, as opposed to five years. (Docket No. 102.)
Plaintiffs have responded. (Docket No. 209.) This matter is ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant's Motion to Reconsider. (Docket No. 205.) The applicable statute of limitations is five-years and the claims of Class Plaintiffs that predate January 30, 2003, are time-barred.
Class Plaintiffs claim that Defendant Norton Healthcare miscalculated the amounts of their lump-sum distributions in violation of the provisions of their contractual retirement plan. The facts in this matter were recited in full in the Court's prior Opinion addressing Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. ( See Docket No. 102.) In the interest of brevity, the Court will not recite the remaining factual background again, but instead incorporates by reference its prior recitations.
"District courts have inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders and reopen any part of a case before entry of a final judgment." In re Saffady, 524 F.3d 799, 803 (6th Cir. 2008); Johnson v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 2:06-CV-173, 2007 WL 2746952 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 20, 2007). "A district court may modify, or even rescind, such interlocutory orders." Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991); see Leelanau Wine Cellars Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 118 F.Appx. 942, 946 (6th Cir.2004).
As to the actual basis for a district court to consider a Motion for Reconsideration, a Sixth Circuit opinion is instructive:
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. Because of this, some circuits have suggested that a district court's power to reconsider an order before final judgment exists under federal common law, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir.2001). Although we agree that the authority for hearing such motions has a common law basis, we find additional support in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Fayetteville v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1469-70 (4th Cir.1991) (approving of Rule 54(b) as a proper procedural vehicle for bringing motions to reconsider interlocutory orders).
District courts have authority both under common law and Rule 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment. See Mallory, 922 F.2d at 1282.
This authority allows district courts "to afford such relief from [interlocutory orders] as justice requires." Citibank N.A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 857 F.Supp. 976, 981 (D.D.C.1994); see also Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir.1981). Traditionally, courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955, 965 (N.D.Ohio 1998).
Rodriguez v. Tennessee Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F.Appx. 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). District courts have authority under both common law and Rule 54(b) to consider Motions for Reconsideration on non-final orders before entry of judgment. See Leelanau Wine Cellars Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 118 F.Appx. 942, 946 (6th Cir. 2004). Courts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders where there is an "(1) intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Louisville/Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, L.P., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009). A Court may revise any order before it issues an entry of judgment adjudicating all of the claims and all of the parties' rights and liabilities. Glass v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 798 F.Supp.2d 902, 906-07 (W.D. Tenn. 2011); Rodriguez, 188 F.Appx. at 959.
The Court issued its opinion denying Defendant's partial motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2011. (Docket No. 102.) The Sixth Circuit issued their opinion in Fallin on August 23, 2012. The Defendant filed its ...