Coffey v. Equian, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

LISA COFFEY PLAINTIFF

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-CV-43-JRW

EQUIAN, LLC DEFENDANT

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

The Court DENIES Lisa Coffey’s motion to alter or amend (DN 20). OPINION Coffey moves to alter or amend the Court’s dismissal of her claims, citing Rules 59(e) and 60(b)(5).1 Under Rule 60(b)(5), the Court may relieve a party from a final judgment if “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.”2 That rule doesn’t apply because Coffey takes issue with the merits of the Court’s decision.3 Additionally, under Rule 59(e), “courts will not address new arguments or evidence that the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.”4 Coffey disputes the Court’s conclusion that amending her Complaint would be futile.5 But, she had two opportunities to

1 DN 20. 2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). 3 DN 20. 4 Banister v. Davis, --- S.Ct. ----, 2020 WL 2814300 *2 (Jun. 1, 2020). 5 DN 20 at #177. address amending her Complaint before the Court dismissed her lawsuit with prejudice.° That she chose not to amend her Complaint then precludes her futility argument now.

Justin R Walker, District Judge United States District Court

June 04, 2020

© DN 19 at #174; see also, Islamic Center of Nashville v. Tennessee, 872 F.3d 377, 387 (6th Cir. 2017) (quoting Sinay v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 948 F.2d 1037, 1041-42 (6th Cir. 1991)) (“a district court does not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a party leave to amend where such leave is not sought.”).