SHIELDS v. ULTIMATE VACATION GROUP LLC

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-285.

JOE SHIELDS, Plaintiff, v. ULTIMATE VACATION GROUP LLC D/B/A ROYAL BAHAMAS CRUISE LINE, et al, Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Galveston Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 47 U.S.C. § 0227
Cause: 47 U.S.C. § 0227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Joe Shields, Plaintiff, represented by David Edwards Wynne , Burdine Wynne LLP.

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Cummings , Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law, Richard W. Epstein , Greenspoon Marder, P.A., George Plato Pappas , Sheehy Serpe et al & Jennifer Diane Cully , Sheehy Ware Pappas PC.

Celebration Cruise Line, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Cummings , Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law, Richard W. Epstein , Greenspoon Marder, P.A., George Plato Pappas , Sheehy Serpe et al & Jennifer Diane Cully , Sheehy Ware Pappas PC.

Celebration Cruises International Ltd. Corp., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law.

Celebration Cruise Holding, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Cummings & Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law.

Nationwide Reservation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Cummings & Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law.

Bahamas Paradise Cruise Line, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Cummings & Jeffrey A. Backman , Greenspoon Marder Law.


ORDER

GEORGE C. HANKS, Jr., District Judge.

On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff Joe Shields, represented by counsel, filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. Dkt. 114. The next day, he filed an "Agreed Proposed Order Granting Dismissal with Prejudice." Dkt. 115. This Court entered an order dismissing the case with prejudice on November 23, 2015. Dkt. 116.

On May 5, 2017, Shields, this time appearing pro se, filed a letter that this Court construes as a motion to reopen the case and reconsider the dismissal. Dkt. 117. Defendants have duly responded to that motion. Dkt. 117.

Shield's request to vacate the dismissal and reopen his case may be liberally construed as seeking relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Smith v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, Institutional Div., 79 Fed. App'x. 61, 62 (5th Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) provides that upon such a motion, a court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered earlier; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or that applying the judgment prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(b)(1)-(6).

Here, Shields alleges fraud by Defendants and their counsel, and newly discovered evidence. However, his motion is untimely. Rule 60(c)(1) requires such motions to be brought within one year after the entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding. FED. R. CIV. PROC. 60(c)(1); Smith v. Kukua, 487 Fed. App'x. 145, 146 (5th Cir. 2012).

After due consideration, the Court finds that Shield's motion, Dkt. 117, should be DENIED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases