United States District Court, D. North Dakota
Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd Odell Ness, Plaintiffs,
Samson Resources, Samson Investments, KKR Kravis, Kohlberg, Roberts, Magnum Hunter, Bakken Hunter, ONEOK Partners, ONEOK, and OKS, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Charles S. Miller, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
in this action sought a litany of damages and other relief
based largely on conclusory allegations that defendants
engaged in an industry-wide scheme to defraud royalty and
other mineral interest owners of the correct amounts owed to
them on the production of natural gas, including from oil and
gas wells in which plaintiffs have an interest. The court
dismissed the case as to all defendants on various grounds in
an order dated February 15, 2019. (Doc. No. 120). Before the
court now is a motion by plaintiffs filed on March 28, 2019,
in which they ask the court to reconsider the dismissal and
allow the case to proceed on the merits. (Doc. No. 122).
Defendants have filed responses in opposition to which
plaintiffs have replied. (Doc Nos. 123-26).
motion to reconsider does not state which rule of procedure
they are proceeding under. However, since judgment has been
entered, the court will presume they are seeking to alter or
amend a judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or are
seeking a motion for relief from a judgment or order pursuant
to Rule 60(b).
If the motion for reconsideration is pursuant to Rule 59(e),
it is too late
Civ. P. 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after
the entry of the judgment.” In this case, judgment was
entered on February 15, 2019, which was the same date the
court entered its order dismissing the case. (Doc. No. 121).
And, as already noted, plaintiffs did not file their motion
to reconsider until March 28, 2019-forty-one (41) days after
entry of judgment. Not only is plaintiffs' motion
untimely if plaintiffs are seeking to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e), the court now lacks jurisdiction
to consider the granting of relief under this Rule. S e e
Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161, 168 (8th
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate entitlement to relief
under Rule 60(b)
60 allows a party to seek substantive relief from a final
judgment for any of the reasons set forth in subdivision (b),
which reads as follows:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or
Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(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);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct ...