Date: 05-09-2006

Case Style: Steven G. Andrews v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company

Case Number: 04-2882

Judge: Sykes

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on appeal from the Central District of Illinois, Sangamon County

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description:

Steven Andrews ("Andrews") was transporting thousands of pounds of ink for E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ("DuPont") when his truck tipped over on a highway ramp. Andrews sued DuPont for negligently loading the truck. When DuPont won a summary judgment, Andrews moved the district court to alter or amend its judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That request tolled the time for appealing. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Once the district court denied Andrews' motion, the thirty-day clock for appealing began. Id. Andrews asked the dis-trict court to reconsider once again. His second request came more than ten days after the entry of judgment, however, which is too late. See FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). An-drews did not see it that way. He read the district court's denial of the first Rule 59(e) motion as a new basis for the summary judgment, and thus a new judgment. Andrews maintained that his new Rule 59(e) motion came within ten days of the new judgment. The district court disagreed. It explained that there was nothing new in its denial of the first Rule 59(e) motion and again refused to alter the judgment, this time on the basis that Andrews' motion was not timely. By the time Andrews finally appealed, thirty-five days after the denial of his first Rule 59(e) motion, it was too late to challenge the entire judgment. The question for us is whether the district court properly denied as untimely Andrews' second motion to alter or amend the judgment. We hold that it did.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None