Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment in the District of Columbia

Understanding the Basis of a Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment

Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59(e) provides in pertinent part:

“Motion to alter or amend judgment. Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.” (Wolff v. Washington, 938 A.2d 691, 693 n.1 [D.C. 2007] citing id.)

“A Rule 59(e) motion is one that ‘seeks relief from alleged legal errors in the trial court's judgment ....’” (Words, Inc. v. Singer, 810 A.2d 910, 911 [D.C. 2002] quoting Vincent v. Anderson, 621 A.2d 367, 371 [D.C. 1993].) Where an “appellant's post-judgment motion ask[s] only for supplementation of the record for the purpose of raising certain issues on appeal [...] [and does] not specify any error in the trial court's judgment, nor ask that the judgment be altered or reconsidered... ‘[t]he nature of a motion is determined by the relief sought, not by its label or caption.’” (Words, Inc., supra, id., citing Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union #730, 482 A.2d 801, 804 [D.C. 1984].)

Importance of the Timeliness of Filing a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

“Under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 50 and 59, a motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment, and a judge has no authority to decide untimely motions. (Tolson v. District of Columbia, 860 A.2d 336, 341 [D.C. 2004] citing D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 42 [D.C. 1988].) Nor may the judge extend the deadline for filing a Rule 50 or 59 motion. (Tolson, supra, id., citing Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, 251 U.S.App. D.C. 82, 88, 781 F.2d 935, 941 [D.C. Cir. 1986]; Derrington-Bey v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 309 U.S.App. D.C. 132, 133 [D.C. Cir. 1994].)

“In Circle Liquors, the motion in question was a ‘Motion to Amend Judgment.’ (Id.) The timely filing of such a motion renders the judgment in the case non-final and that, in turn, denies this court jurisdiction to hear any appeal from that particular judgment.” (In re Estate of Delaney, 819 A.2d 968, 1001 [D.C. 2003] citing Circle Liquors, Inc. v. Cohen 670 A.2d 381, 384 [D.C. 1996]; Dyer v. William S. Bergman Associates 635 A.2d 1285, 1288 [D.C. 1993].)

“However, when a requested amendment ‘raises issues that are, for all practical purposes, collateral to and separate from the decision on the merits,’ the order disposing of the merits remains appealable.” (Weaver v. Grafio, 595 A.2d 983, 986 [D.C. 1991] citing Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co., 486 U.S. 196, 200 [1988]; see also Words, Inc. v. Singer, 810 A.2d 910 [D.C. 2002].) “Moreover, if the trial court later rules on ‘the pending motion without modifying the judgment being appealed,’ [...] the premature filing of the appeal does not divest this court of jurisdiction.” (In re Estate of Delaney, 819 A.2d 968, 1001 [D.C. 2003] Circle Liquors, supra, 670 A.2d at 385 n. 8].)

Distinguishing Between Super.Ct.Civ R. 59 and 60 Motions

“We reiterate the standard of review governing the denial of Super. Ct. Civ. R. 59 and 60 motions: ‘Rule 59 motions that claim an error of law are reviewed de novo, see e.g. Joeckel v. Disabled Am. Veterans, 793 A.2d 1279, 1281 (D.C. 2002) ..., whereas Rule 60 motions are reviewed for abuse of discretion.’” (Callahan v. Cathedral, 934 A.2d 348, 353 [D.C. 2007] citing Puckrein v. Jenkins, 884 A.2d 46, 60 [D.C. 2005]; Nichols v. First Union Nat'l Bank, 905 A.2d 268, 272 n. 2 [D.C. 2006].)

“Rule 59(e) states that: ‘Any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.’ ‘Rule 59 with its inflexible ten-day period applies only to a final, appealable judgment.’” (Callahan v. Cathedral, 934 A.2d 348, 353 [D.C. 2007] citing Williams v. Vel Rey Props., Inc., 699 A.2d 416, 419 [D.C. 1997] [citations omitted]; see also 12 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 59.31[5] [“Rule 54(a) defines ‘judgment’ as a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.”].) “Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(a), which is based on its federal counterpart, also defines ‘judgment’ as ‘a decree and any order from which an appeal lies.’”

“Rule 60(b) specifies in pertinent part:

‘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; [...]
2. fraud [...], misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party.... Rule 60(b) motions must "be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1); and
3. not more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken.’”

(Callahan v. Cathedral, 934 A.2d 348, 353 [D.C. 2007] citing Rule 60(b).)

Interlocutory Orders and Motions to Reconsider

“[M]otions to reconsider interlocutory orders are not subject to the restrictive time limits imposed upon motions to reconsider final judgments.” (Callahan v. Cathedral, 934 A.2d 348, 353 [D.C. 2007] Williams, supra, 699 A.2d at 419 citing Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n. 1 [10th Cir.1991] [other citations omitted].)