u good morning my name is eric stanley and i represent the appellant calvary christian center and we respectfully request this court reverse the decision for two reasons first the district court never conducted the required rule fifteen analysis for a decision on a motion for leave to amend a complaint and secondly because the proposed amendment to the complaint would not have been prejudicial to the city was not in bad faith or futile because it was offered at a very early sta twenty one which is before us and that was the motion to file and that's correct at that point in time you agree that there was no complaint and dismissed at that point in time case was closed it was a judgment final judgment and her complaint dismissed that there was a final judgment yes your honor but the complaint turned to appeal the granting of a motion to dismiss had expired at that point the time to appeal had expired at that point yes your honor but what i think that the district court was required to do which was as this court had made clear in the labor case and then reaffirmed in matrix capital and could tie all that either on a  prejudgment motion to amend the complaint or in a post judgment motion to him in the complaint the standards are the same let me ask you this just create the issue that i have in my mind craig court throws out a complaint five years ago twelve the six motion final enters a final judgment and it's not up five years later you go down to the court and you follow a motion to amend that complain court says hold it there is no complaint complaint was thrown out what you have to do is to reopen that case five year old case they cate the judgment and then amend the complaint right that's correct in and  this case the factual circumstances are no difference because you don't even get under fifty nine you get under will sixty you have to vacate it under rule six because you are beyond the time period of twenty eight days and you would have to come under sixty and give a reason under rule sixty why the case should be reopened at which point if it is opened then you can move to amend and will fifteen comes up well respectfully i think that that's not what the court's precedent says that i think what we w do my hypothetical five years ago you said you're saying that under our precedents we would have to address a motion to amend a complaint that's been five years gone under are under your precedent your honor i believe that yes even if it's if it's a post judgment motion to amend if it's five years gone i believe that the the rule fifteen analysis of prejudiced bad faith in futility would still need to be undertaken now i think it would be an easy one slight well be easy case in that your honor that if there was a ru motion in five years to reopen the case then i think that that what the what this court has said in labor in matrix capital and in can tile is that in a post judgment motion to amend the complaint the rule fifteen analysis doesn't exist here well and that may be getting to what the city argued in its brief but this is michael this is really this is just my conception or difficulty with with your argument that the complaints gone well the complaint and that's that's correct it was it did become a final judgment it's gone and it's fine you're beyond the appeal period but post judgment motion for leave to amend can be analyzed by the district court and this court has said that sure the only difference between a very judgmental labor the one you're relying on labor yes your honor well in labor we said the district court may not grant the post judgment motion unless the judgment is vacated right person to rule fifty nine or sixty and that's what i was just i issue is have you vacated and gotten that judgement bake a bit so that you have a complaint before the court and that's right and maybe i misunderstood where you were headed with your hypothetical but i do think that's all right you're aware of after a complaint has been dismissed and as a final judgment you can come in under rule sixty and file a motion under fifteen to amend the complaint without a cave and the judge under rule sixty yes your honor in fact  did file we did we filed a motion for reconsideration or show me that record that is documented or forty one in the record the way that this procedurally worked was the district court had had dismissed the complaint and then we filed a motion for leave to amend but which they did on the man the reconsideration was added we consider the motion to him that's correct and we believe that that motion should be construed as a rule sixty motion and if you didn't even ask to vacate the judgment well this court in in the case this court the plaintiffs there filed a motion for reconsideration and the court construed it as a rule fifty nine motion because it was a post judgment motion if the court said there is no such thing as a as a post judgment motion for reconsideration and when such a motion is filed it should be construed under either rule fifty nine or rule sixty depending upon the time frame is as to which it was filed it's within twenty eight days of judgment it should be under rule fifty nine well what we're arguing is that the court should have construed our motion under for reconsideration under rule sixty as a motion for reconsideration post judgment motion and appoint the court to the tile case where in that court in that judge duncan's thing the precedent you rely on which reconsideration of a motion to dismiss and the court could treat that as a motion under will fifty nine or sixty but that's your motion to reconsider was not a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the complaint your motion was to reconsider the motion to divide the motion to a man and the motion to amend was correctly granted well and which appears to have been appropriately our argument in this case is that this court has made it clear in its precedents that that we probably it would have been a whole lot easier but i think i'm saying it's it's appropriate to file a motion to amend if there's a complaint sure but if there's a complaint there's a motion a map but in this case you're saying it's proper to file a motion to a man post judgment if you follow a motion to vacate the judgment and of course then because the step a court can do is to make the judges and then to consider the will fifteen but will fifteen  plies only to an existing complaint doesn't it does your honor and what we're at what we would ask this court to do is to construe the motion for leave to amend and or the motion for reconsideration as opposed to judgment motion under rule sixty that we  we were asking for was this the district court had dismissed the complaint because it found insufficient facts that were pled and what we wanted to do was to go back in and to add those sufficient facts in the complaint which we did those sufficient facts are alleged  which is part of the joint appendix and so what we're what we would ask is that that those motions were intended to fix what the district court had found was lacking in the complaint and under the liberal amendment policy in  with rule sixty that's right and roll sixteen now you could follow a rule sixty motion now we could consider that but that's too you'd have to make a case as to why the reopen the original judgment and i don't know what part of will sixty you rely on right under rule sixty obviously it would be rule sixty six which that's sort of a wildcard just sort of justice right but it is that's correct and this court has made it clear in the mayfield case argument and where this court is that we the motion for reconsideration that we filed should be considered a rule sixty motion that's what we're arguing about on the page of the of the of our brief no reconsideration motion endings oh it's on document number we did not stated in those specific terms other than to file the motion for reconsideration to say judge we believe that your order where's it wasn't reconsideration you didn't put in the appendix you're relying on  it your honor we have it it is i'm sorry we put in the the order on the motion for reconsideration in the appendix of page one sixty six but the motion itself is not in there it's document over forty one and i apologize that that didn't get included  that the court reconsider its denial of the motion for leave to him and we argued under the labor case that the court was required to conduct a rule fifteen analysis even under that that was what was required green labor said we only do that after you grant the motion make my question if you ever asked the court to vacate the judgment not in those specific terms well in any terms we believe that we did by filing the mises and we cooperation what did you say that required vacate we said judge we would respectfully request that you allow us leave to amend the complaint in our vacating the judgment well our argument before this court is that it is a post judgment motion for reconsideration should be considered construed as a judgment and a motion under rule sixty there's no other no cases help that you have to have a complaint to follow a motion it seems to me it would be it would benefit you a lot to read the rules carefully and see what they're dressing and it seems to me that when you're post judgment to apply prejudgment rules such as motion for discovery or motion to amend or motion to take a deposition or whatever it is all those motions are pre judgement now if you're going to do a post judgment motion that goes back you're going to have to open up the case somehow and i don't know if it would be if you think that think it if it didn't last to vacate the judgment then i'm not sure it's going to help much but you're free to do that if you want to do that it should have been in the j a but if your specialism you're relying on it so may please the court your honors money is jennifer paris and i represent the city of fredericksburg virginia in this appeal it is our position that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to amend because it was never properly before the court and we think  is the case for four main reasons first of all is your honour's have pointed out today calvary christian failed to file any motion under either rule fifty nine he or rule sixty b at any time before filing this motion to amend which is a mandatory prerequisite to the consideration by the district court of a post judgment motion secondly the district court was not required to consider calvery christians motion for leave to amend or its motion for reconsideration of the denial leave to a man as a rule fifty nine he or rule sixty b motion third even if the court wanted to consider the motion that was filed the motion to a man and as a rule fifty nine or sixty motion the motion filed by calvary christian in this case didn't meet the requirements under either of those rules and fourth the district court is not required to provide the three pronged analysis of prejudice bad faith in futility for a motion for leave to amend under labor versus harvey i know that's been cited before a fourth circuit two thousand and six case at four thirty eight f third four of four as your honor pointed out that case held the post judgment motion for leave to amend under rule fifteen a two which is what this motion was cannot be granted until the judgment is bake ated pursuant to rule fifty nine years sixty b in this case i believe calvary christian is asking your honour's to consider that the district court should have made the motion to a man on its own accord into a rule fifty nine or sixty motion which is not required by the district court and certainly is not an abuse of discretion for not occurring there is no legal authority in a motion you said the motion under rule fifteen are it's the rule fifty our sixty motions that we say even if the court wanted to in its own discretion treat the motion to amend under one of those rules the motion filed by plaintive didn't follow the requirements first of all it couldn't have been a rule fifty nine motion because it was filed after thirty days after the final judgment not within the required twenty eight days the plaintiff basically we have here a motion to amend which the judge as a rule sixty b mo that was the exact i mean you understand that that was exactly the question and i had a similar question which is is it anything in the motion for reconsideration this is any of anything in that motion go to the sixty will sixty factors it does not hear out of the motion for consideration as mr stanley admitted merely requests the court to reconsideration to reconsider the denial of the motion to a man and unlike the case that was cited by mr stanley in fact all of the cases cited by calvary christian in his memoranda talk about the discretion of a district court judge in choosing on some occasions to treat motions to a man or other motions that are filed post verdict post judgment as a rule fifteen i mean fifty nine or sixty motion even without it being requested and our point in this case is not only was it not requested by name there was no request in either the motion to a man or the motion for reconsideration of the not of the most into a man for the type of relief that you can get under rule sixty there was no analysis of any of the factors of rule sixty there was no request reynolds all these all rules are not just traps or lawyers th to create an orderly disposition to create some finality and orderly disposition of cases and i suppose if he really is aggrieved he could still even today follow rules sixty motion we have that rule there to catch  errors usually and maybe if a lot changes significantly he could take advantage of that under will sixty but all of these rules have a purpose and it seems to me that if  he lets his dismissal go by and become a final judgment not even subject will fifty nine then there is we're in a state where the case is over and for him to come back now it seems to me yes to make  case that we need to reopen this case because of a lack of some kind of justice or something and maybe he has i case but he hasn't alleged it in the district court unless is his motion says and he's going to provide us with a copy of  grant the relief he's requesting is to find that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court in this case not to have looked at the motion to a man or the motion to reconsider the denial motion to a man under rule sixty that request was never requested and under a broad reading of what the plaintiff is arguing as your honor pointed out he could file he could have filed yesterday in the district court a rule sixty motion and do it next when you next week and times are entered to get more i understand that i will represent to the court that what we did argue in that motion was that under the rule fifteen standard that the motion for leave two men should have been granted that the court should have conducted an analysis of prejudice bad faith or futility and the  essentially what we were asking for at that you're going to address that to the district court right i mean that's correct and we believe that i must say i looked up looked at your complaint and i'm not sure you gain a lot of mileage the district court threw it out for a bunch of reasons and you may want to examine that a little more carefully before you spend a lot of judicial effort and pursuing this further but your standard is going to be very high with a sixty motion at this point in time and so we have tempted to go back and add those inside those sufficient facts into the complaint and we believe that should be legally sufficient that's correct and i think that's an issue that the district court could decide again if it looks at the a minute complain if it's ever accept reopen the case to allow us to plead the sufficient facts that the district court found we're not there and that's already open i don't i don't believe we use the word reopen we did ask for the district court to allow us to file an amended complaint complaint most people would say hold it we have some words of finality that's exactly right and i will freely and you know then that it will get them open it would have been a whole lot easier for us certainly if we had brought said under rule sixty this is what we want to do and reopen the case that would have made this this a whole lot easier it's not just that but i guess the question is one of the ground rules looking but well under rule sixty we would have allege that there is no prejudice it's not in bad faith and it's not and question is what would you have said as to a reason to reopen the case now that it's finally closed and you didn't appeal it which is what we were proceeding under was this court's precedent in the tile case which says that under i think it's a good point if you were if you were to have filed sixty what would have been the grounds and i'm trying to answer the question by saying that what would have been the grounds would have been what this court said and could tile which is that you don't look at the rule sixty grounds if you're deciding whether post judgment motion for leave to amend should be filed you look at rule fifteen it said the court dispenses with the rule fifty nine and rule sixty standard and just decides on in the case it is six thirty seven f third pages four seventy two four seventy one the court said the court need only ask where the amendment should be granted just as it would on a prejudgment motion to amend evaluating for prejudice bad faith or futility the standard for whether you what do they say about fifty nine what it what they said was that under rule that you dispense with the rule fifty nine and rule sixty standard in deciding a post judgment motion for leave to amend and that you decided under rule fifteen thank you ok thank you i will come down great counsel take the short