Ferrante v. Westin St. John Hotel Co.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:18-CV-108-D

GUY FERRANTE, and ) DEBORAH FERRANTE, ) □ ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ORDER ) WESTIN ST. JOHN HOTEL CoO., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. )

On January 29, 2020, the court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment [D.E. 90, 91]. On February 28, 2020, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal [D.E. 92]. On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs moved for a new trial [D.E. 94]. On March 20, 2020, defendants responded in opposition [D.E. 96]. This court retains jurisdiction to deny plaintiffs’ motion. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(a)(2); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); Stevenson v. Shoup, 390 F. App’x 286, 287 (4th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (unpublished); In re Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal, 947 F.2d 1188, 1190-91 (4th Cir. 1991); Pitrolo v. Cty. of Buncombe, No. 1:06cv199, 2013 WL 588753, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 13, 2013) (unpublished). As explained in defendants’ memorandum in opposition, plaintiffs are not entitled to relief under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52, 56, 59, or 60. See [D.E. 96]. Moreover, plaintiffs’ motion is untimely under Rule 52(b) and 59(e). “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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b) (containing same 28-day deadline); Aikens v. Ingram, 652 F.3d 496, 501 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc). The court entered

judgment on January 29, 2020 [D.E. 91]. Thus, February 26, 2020, was plaintiff's deadline to file motion under Rule 52(b) or 59(e). See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (explaining computation of time); Bolden v. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, No. DKC 13-1265, 2014 WL 994066, at *1 nl (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2014) (unpublished). Plaintiffs did not file their motion for a new trial until March 3, 2020, and the court cannot extend the time for filing a Rule 52(b) or 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the motion is untimely under Rule 52(b) and Rule 59(e). In sum, the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial [D.E. 94]. SO ORDERED. This 1S day of April 2020.

4. I Vita J S C. DEVER II United States District Judge