Hall v. Baptist Healthcare System, Inc.

Full title: CHERYL S. HALL and JUDITH A. SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all others…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Owensboro Division

Date published: Nov 14, 2007

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-292 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 14, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:07-CV-292.

November 14, 2007

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JOSEPH McKINLEY JR., District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon a motion by the Plaintiffs for the Court to reconsider its October 22, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order. (DN 18) Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. For the following reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Plaintiffs have brought their Motion to Reconsider pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(b) ¹ and 59(e).² When a Rule 59 motion is made to alter or amend a judgment, it may be granted if "there is clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or in order to prevent manifest injustice." GenCorp, Inc. v. American International Underwriters, 178 F.3d. 804, 834 (6^th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). To constitute "newly discovered evidence," the evidence must have been previously unavailable. Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Here, the Plaintiffs first argue that the Court made a clear error of law when it found that the Defendants' 2002 letters denying the Plaintiffs' claims for benefits substantially complied with ERISA. The Plaintiffs also argue that the Court erred when it held that the Plaintiffs had not established that it had been futile for them to pursue an administrative appeal. For the reasons set forth in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court disagrees. (DN 16).

The Plaintiffs also argue that the Court erred when it dismissed their claims with prejudice. They point to Ravencraft v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am. 212 F.3d 341 (6^th Cir. 2000). InRavencraft, the Sixth Circuit held that the plaintiff's claims should have been dismissed without prejudice since the dismissal was based solely on a failure to exhaust administrative remedies and not on the merits. Id. at 344. The Plaintiffs here, however, unlike the plaintiff in Ravencraft, filed suit long after the deadline for pursuing administrative remedies had expired and, thus, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Dismissal without prejudice is only appropriate whenever a claim for benefits can still be brought and that is impossible here. See, e.g., Gayle v. UPS, Inc., 401 F.3d 222, 230 (4^th Cir. 2005); Harris v. Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc., 438 F.Supp. 2d 728, 734 (E.D. Ky. 2006).

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.