United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Southeastern Division
NICHOLAS R. TIMMONS, Plaintiff,
L.E.P., a minor, and TIMOTHY J. POWDERLY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CRITES-LEONI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending before the Court is Plaintiff Nicholas R.
Timmons' Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment in favor
of Timothy J. Powderly. (Doc. 37). For the following reasons,
Timmons' Motion will be denied.
Count I of his Complaint, Timmons asserts a negligence claim
against L.E.P., the minor permit driver of the Trans Am that
collided with the vehicle operated by Timmons on September
21, 2015. (Doc. 1 at p. 2.) Timmons alleges that L.E.P. was
not skilled or experienced in operating the vehicle she was
driving, and drove at a speed that was too fast to maintain
control of the vehicle. Id. He states that he
sustained injury, has incurred medical expenses, and has
experienced pain, suffering, lost income, and disability as a
result of L.E.P.'s negligence. Id.
asserts a negligent entrustment claim against Timothy E.
Powderly, Timmons' father, in Count II. Id. at
p. 3. He states that Powderly was the owner of the Trans-Am
driven by L.E.P. Id. Timmons alleges that Powderly
negligently entrusted the vehicle to L.E.P. when he knew his
daughter was too inexperienced “to operate such a
powerful vehicle.” Id.
asserts an affirmative defense of comparative fault. (Doc. 2
at p. 2-3.)
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against L.E.P, contending
that L.E.P. admitted both fault and damages during her
deposition. He requested that the Court enter summary
judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against L.E.P., and that
this matter proceed to trial against L.E.P. on the issue of
compensatory damages only.
Powderly filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which he
argued that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
Timmons' negligent entrustment claim because Timmons
produced no evidence to support such a claim.
Memorandum and Order dated June 9, 2017, the Court granted
Powderly's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied
Timmons' Motion. (Doc. 34.) Timmons now asks the Court to
reconsider its grant of summary judgment in favor of Powderly
on Timmons' negligent entrustment claim.
is no specific rule which references Motions to Reconsider in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “However, the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that motions
for reconsideration are nothing more than Rule 60(b) motions
when directed at non-final orders.” Wichmann v.
Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing, No. 4:06CV1457 HEA,
2007 WL 735017, *1 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 8, 2007) (internal
citations and quotations omitted). Similarly, in In
re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, No.
4:06MD1811 CDP, 4:07CV416 CDP, 2008 WL 80663 (E.D. Mo. Jan.
7, 2008), the Court stated:
In this circuit, motions for reconsideration are construed as
Rule 60(b) motions. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d
987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999). Rule 60(b) motions should not be
granted as a result of reargument of the merits but must be
based on the circumstances enumerated in the Rule.
Id. These circumstances include: mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered
evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable
diligence, fraud, the judgment being void, and satisfaction,
release, or discharge of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). In
this Circuit, relief for judicial error under Rule 60(b)(1)-
the section dealing with mistake is only available for
judicial inadvertence. Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas
Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2000).
Id. at *1.
argues that, in granting summary judgment in favor of Timothy
Powderly on Count II, the Court “misstated the law of
negligent entrustment, misquoting its elements and finding as
result that habitual recklessness or prior bad acts or wrecks
are a requisite element of the tort.” (Doc. 38 at p.
1.) Timmons further argues that the entry ...