Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hopkins v. Ameritas Life Insurance Corp.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

July 9, 2019

WILLIAM S. HOPKINS PLAINTIFF
v.
AMERITAS LIFE INSURANCE CORP. DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          GREG N. STIVERS, CHIEF JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Prosecution of Pending Litigation (DN 72) and Defendant's Motion to Strike or Seal and Impose Sanctions (DN 73). The motions are ripe for adjudication. For the foregoing reasons, the motions are DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         PLAINTIFF William S. Hopkins (“Hopkins”), a self-employed endodontist, filed this lawsuit relating to a disability insurance policy he purchased from Defendant Ameritas Life Insurance Corp. (“Ameritas”). (Compl ¶¶ 7-8, DN 1-2). Hopkins subsequently became disabled and made a claim under the disability policy. (Compl. ¶ 10). Ameritas made disability income payments through June 18, 2014, when payments ceased because Ameritas believed it had overpaid Hopkins $83, 103.20 in disability benefits. (Comp. ¶ 14).

         Hopkins sued Ameritas in state court alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and a violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS 367.110-.330. (Comp. ¶¶ 7-33). Ameritas then removed the lawsuit to this Court. (Notice Removal, DN 1). Through a private mediator, the parties settled their dispute, and on October 30, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. (Report Mediation, DN 64; Agreed Order, DN 67).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Plaintiff's Motion for Prosecution of Pending Litigation (DN 72)

         Hopkins moves pro se for prosecution of this lawsuit. (Pl.'s Mot. Prosecution Pending Litigation 1, DN 72). As this Court noted above, however, this case was closed on October 30, 2017, based on the parties' settlement, and there is no pending litigation in this Court to prosecute.

         In addressing Plaintiff's motion, therefore, the Court must consider whether court rules permit any modification of the final judgment dismissing all claims with prejudice. In particular, Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60 address when a court may revisit a judgment in a closed case.

         1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Because this lawsuit was dismissed on October 30, 2017, a motion under Fed. R. Civ. 59 had to be filed no later than November 27, 2017. Hopkins' present motion was filed on April 15, 2019, and is therefore untimely under that rule.

         2. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

         a. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(3)

         Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(3), a court may grant relief from a judgment based upon “(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] (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party . . . .” A motion for relief under any of these grounds must be filed within one ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.