Opinion ID: 655057
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 51 On December 27, 1991, default judgment was entered against Ball and on February 14, 1992, Ball filed a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60, 62 and 6 for relief from the entry of default and from the default judgment. On appeal Ball contends that his motion was brought pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and not 60(b) as originally styled. 52 Whether Ball's motion is properly styled as 59(e) or 60(b) is significant because it determines whether this court has appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's final judgment, or only to review the order denying Ball's motion to set aside the default and the default judgment. 53 To preserve the original judgment for appeal and review on the merits, [the defendant] had to pursue two paths simultaneously: [his] Rule 60(b) motion before the district court, and [his] notice of appeal to this court.... United States v. One Urban Lot, 882 F.2d 582 (1st Cir.1989). 54 The plaintiffs charge that the court's jurisdiction was not properly invoked because Ball's notice of appeal was not filed timely pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 4(a). Lindsey v. Perini, 409 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir.1969). Rule 4(a) requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days of the entry of judgment. This time period ceases to run, however, if any one of several post-judgment motions is filed with the District Court. Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, 62 (6th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 444 U.S. 986 (1979). This includes a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) seeking to alter or amend a judgment, McDowell v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 931 F.2d 380, 382 (6th Cir.1991), but does not include a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Rule 59(e) provides: 55 A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. 56 Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b) provides, in pertinent part: 57 On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect ... A motion under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.... 58 Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 59 The plaintiffs submit that the motion Ball filed on February 14, 1992, was a Rule 60(b) motion. They charge that because Ball did not file a notice of appeal timely, the original judgment cannot be reviewed on the merits. Sutherland v. ITT Continental Baking Co., Inc., 710 F.2d 473, 475 (8th Cir.1983). 60 Courts are split on the issue of what factors should be considered in determining whether a post-judgment motion arises under 59(e) or 60(b). Some have held that any post-judgment motion filed within ten days after entry of judgment is considered a 59(e) motion. See, e.g., Harcon Barge Company, Inc. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 668 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 930 (1986) (If a motion falls within the scope of Rule 59(e), and it is timely served within ten days after entry of judgment as that rule requires, then the court must consider it as a Rule 59(e) motion for the purposes of Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), regardless of how it is styled.); Moy v. Howard University, 843 F.2d 1504, 1505-06 (D.C.Cir.1988); Charles v. Daley, 799 F.2d 343, 347 (7th Cir.1986). Ball's motion was filed within the time period for filing a 59(e) motion. 61 Other courts consider the substance of the motion. Taumby v. U.S., 919 F.2d 69, 71 (8th Cir.1990); Echevarria-Gonzalez v. Gonzalez-Chapel, 849 F.2d 24, 25-27 (1st Cir.1988); Gulf Coast Fans, Inc. v. Midwest Electronics Importers, Inc., 740 F.2d 1499, 1507 (11th Cir.1984). 4 62 Moore's Federal Practice states that [a]ny motion that draws into question the correctness of a judgment is functionally a motion under Civil Rule 59(e), whatever its label. 9 J.Moore Federal Practice p 204.12 at 4-67 (1985). Virtually every circuit court has followed the reasoning of Moore. 5 See, e.g., Dove v. Codesco, 569 F.2d 807, 809 (4th Cir.1978), holding that a motion which calls into question the correctness of a judgment should be treated as a motion under Rule 59(e), however it is styled. 63 Although this circuit has not specifically dealt with this issue, in Smith, 600 F.2d at 62, supra, we held that it was proper for the District Court to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) even though it was filed prior to the actual entry of judgment. This same reasoning permits the determination that the motion filed as a Rule 60(b) motion, but filed within the time for filing a 59(e) motion, should be entertained as a 59(e) motion. 64 The Smith court held further that a motion which asks a court to vacate and reconsider, or even to reverse its prior holding, may properly be treated under Rule 59(e) as a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Id. 6 65 We find that the post-judgment motion of Ball was functionally a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Accordingly this court has jurisdiction to review both the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment and the underlying default judgment.