Opinion ID: 722554
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the Judgment Properly Amended?

Text: 30 The City argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the Original Judgment and order the City to give the Utility control of the water distribution infrastructures in the disputed areas. First, the City argues that the district court's decision to construe the Motion as a Rule 59(e) motion was clearly erroneous. Although the City cites no authority for this conclusional proposition, it seems to be arguing that, as a matter of law, a district court cannot construe a motion to amend the complaint as a Rule 59(e) motion. We have found no support for this proposition. 31 As a general matter, the caption on a pleading does not constrain the court's treatment of a pleading. For example, Rule 8(f) instructs district courts to construe all pleadings so as to do substantial justice, while Rule 8(c) counsels that when a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counter-claim or vice-versa the court shall, if justice so requires, treat the pleading as though it had the proper designation. 29 Thus, the district court could construe the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion so long as the requirements of Rule 59(e) are met. 32 Rule 59(e) requires that a motion call into question the correctness of the judgment and be served within ten days after the entry of the judgment. 30 The City does not contest the first element, but attempts to obfuscate the second by arguing that the Utility failed to serve its motion within the ten day limitation period. 31 According to the district court's docket sheet, the Original Judgment was entered on December 15, 1994. The limitations period under Rule 59(e) is less than 11 days, so under Rule 6(a) the date on which the judgment was entered, weekends, and federal holidays are not counted in computing the period of time prescribed or allowed by these rules. 32 Under this computation method, the Utility had from December 15, 1994 until December 30, 1994 to serve a Rule 59(e) motion. 33 As the City avers that it received a copy of the motion on December 29, 1994, the motion was timely under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, we hold that there was no legal impediment to construing the Utility's Motion as a Rule 59(e) motion and that the motion was timely under Rule 59(e).