Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantdamagesmotioncivil procedure
plaintifftrialmotionwillleasedocket

Related Cases

DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d 286, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,046
View Case »
Gillingham v. Stephenson, 209 W.Va. 741, 551 S.E.2d 663
View Case »
Honeywell v. Sterling Furniture Co., 310 Or. 206, 797 P.2d 1019
View Case »
McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N.Y. 340, 160 N.E. 391, 57 A.L.R. 1
View Case »
Gemmink v. Jay Peak Inc., 807 F.3d 46
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Universal Communication Systems, Inc. v. Lycos Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2006 WL 8458182

Facts

Plaintiffs, led by CEO Michael J. Zwebner, filed a lawsuit against Lycos, Inc. and Terra Networks, S.A. for allegedly defamatory messages posted on the Raging Bull Internet message board. They claimed that the defendants were involved in operating the message board and sought damages for fraudulent securities transactions, cyberstalking, and trade name dilution. The case was transferred from the District of Southern Florida and consolidated with another action involving similar claims. After motions to dismiss were filed by the defendants, the court granted the motions, leaving only the John Doe defendants.

Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons for claims arising out of allegedly defamatory messages posted on the Raging Bull Internet message board dedicated to messages related to UCSY.

Issue

Whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification of its previous order denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint.

Whether the court should grant the plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification of its previous order denying their motion for leave to amend their complaint.

Rule

Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 10 days after entry of the judgment. Rule 60 allows the court to relieve a party from a final judgment for specific reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud.

The only relevant portion of Rule 59 states in full that '[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment.' Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 60 provides in relevant 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) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Analysis

The court analyzed the plaintiffs' motion under both Rule 59 and Rule 60, determining that the plaintiffs did not meet the criteria for relief under either rule. The court maintained its position from the December 21, 2005 order, asserting that the original decision to deny the motion for leave to amend was correct based on the reasons previously stated.

Plaintiff's request will be denied under both of these rules because the court continues to hold the view, as it did when making the Order of December 21, 2005, that it was correct for the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order of that date.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification, upholding its earlier ruling.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification (Rule 59) or, Alternatively, Modification (Rule 60) of Order [DE 88] Denying the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend their Complaint Against Lycos, Inc. & Terra Networks, S.A. [DE 81] (Docket No. 89) is DENIED.

Who won?

Lycos, Inc. and Terra Networks, S.A. prevailed in the case as the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for clarification or modification, affirming the correctness of its previous order.

You must be