United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LAURIE SMITH CAMP, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the "Motion For New Trial/Rehearing Under FRCP 59" (Filing No. 40) submitted by Defendant Young's Welding and Machine Shop, LLC ("Young's Welding"). For the reasons stated below, the Motion will be denied.
On January 20, 2015, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order ("prior Order") (Filing No. 39), dismissing Young's Welding's Third Party Complaint (Filing No. 20) against Show-Me Shortline Company, LLC ("Show-Me"). In the prior Order, the Court found that Young's Welding failed to state claims against Show-Me upon which relief could be granted. The Court incorporates the factual summary from its prior Memorandum and Order here. (Filing No. 39 at 1-2.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Young's Welding asserts that it brings its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Pursuant to Rule 59, the court may grant a new trial "after a jury trial... or after a nonjury trial...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(1). Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), parties may file "[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment... no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment." As there has been no trial in this case and the Court has not entered a final judgment, the Court will review Young's Welding's Motion as one for reconsideration rather than a motion for a new trial.
This Court's local rules at one point addressed motions for reconsideration, see NECivR 60.1 (2009), and included a standard of review for such motions, which stated:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court will ordinarily deny them without a showing of (1) manifest error in the prior ruling or (2) new facts or legal authority, neither of which could have been brought to the court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Because "[t]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration, " Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 989 (8th Cir. 1999), this local rule was removed in 2010. Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit has found that when a motion for reconsideration is filed and addresses a nonfinal order, it is properly construed as a Rule 60(b) motion. Broadway, 193 F.3d at 989. Such motions "serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the Amended Complaint (Filing No. 37), Plaintiffs William and Alecia Shelton ("Plaintiffs") assert one claim against Young's Welding. That claim is a products liability claim based on strict liability in tort. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint does not state a claim based on negligence. Young's Welding's Third Party Complaint asserted claims against Show-Me for strict liability, negligence, and breach of implied warranties.
I. Young's Welding's Assignments of Error
Young's Welding contends that the Court erred in dismissing its claims against Show-Me by ...