Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_99-cv-00552/USCOURTS-alsd-1_99-cv-00552-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

1

It is unclear why the defendants did not include, or even reference, Governor Riley’s

letter in their motion for new trial since — as noted in the Court’s previous order — the

timeliness of such a motion is jurisdictional, the burden to prove timeliness rests squarely upon

the defendants, and available legal sources do not reflect such a holiday. The defendant’s

assertion that “[i]t was common knowledge” that November 25, 2005 was a state holiday, (Doc.

372, ¶ 11), does not seem to answer the question, given that defense counsel called this chambers

prior to filing the motion for new trial and inquired whether the day after Thanksgiving was

excludable under Rule 6(a). Counsel was informed that the Court does not provide legal advice.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE CO., )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION 99-0552-WS-C

 )

MATTHEW LEACH COCHRAN, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motion to clarify, correct and/or

reconsider. (Doc. 372). The motion is directed towards the Court’s order, (Doc. 366), denying

the defendants’ motion for new trial. (Doc. 358). After carefully considering the same, the

Court concludes that the pending motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part. 

The defendants first argue that their motion for new trial was not untimely because

November 25, 2005 was a state holiday for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). 

The defendants have attached a letter from Governor Riley to all state departments and agencies

declaring that “all state offices will be closed on Thursday and Friday, November 24-25[, 2005]

in observance of Thanksgiving.” The Court concludes that this letter satisfactorily establishes

that the day after Thanksgiving was a legal holiday for purposes of Rule 6(a), rendering the

motion for new trial timely.1

 

On the merits, the defendants offer the affidavit of their counsel. It is far too late,

however, for such maneuvering. A motion to reconsider may not be used as a vehicle to inject

new arguments into the underlying motion or to submit evidence previously available but not

Case 1:99-cv-00552-WS-C Document 374 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 2
2

E.g., Mays v. United States Postal Service, 122 F.3d 43, 46 (11th Cir. 1997).

3

Summit Medical Center, Inc. v. Riley, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1355 (M.D. Ala. 2003).

-2-

properly presented on the underlying motion.2

 Instead, “[a] motion to reconsider is only

available when a party presents the court with evidence of an intervening change in controlling

law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear error or manifest injustice.”3

 

Nor would counsel’s affidavit be of any assistance even if it could be considered at this

late juncture. With respect to Emmanuel Cook, counsel states only that he was not told before

trial that Cook would not be called by the plaintiff, that Cook was in fact available to be called,

or that the plaintiff would introduce evidence concerning Cook, his actions and opinions through

other witnesses. These objections were addressed and discredited in the Court’s previous order,

(Doc. 366 at 3-4), which need not be repeated herein.

The affidavit chiefly addresses the two post-denial letters from plaintiff’s counsel that

were in the claim file exhibit that reached the jury. The “understanding” expressed in the

affidavit is the same articulated in the motion for new trial, and it remains incorrect and

ineffective for the reasons set forth in the Court’s order denying that motion. (Doc. 366 at 6-7).

For the reasons set forth above, the defendants’ motion to clarify, correct and/or

reconsider is granted to the extent that the defendants’ motion for new trial is found to be timely

filed. In all other respects, the motion is denied. 

DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2006.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-00552-WS-C Document 374 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2