Barnes v. Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denies Arthur D. Barnes’s third motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4). The court concludes that the motion repeats arguments previously rejected, seeks to relitigate the merits of the summary judgment ruling, and does not establish a jurisdictional defect or due process violation rendering the judgment void.

Holdings

1. Rule 60(b)(4) relief was unavailable because Plaintiff did not show that the district court lacked power to enter the judgment or that a jurisdictional or due-process error deprived him of notice or an opportunity to be heard.
2. A successive Rule 60(b) motion is an inappropriate vehicle for rearguing an issue previously addressed when it merely advances new arguments or supporting facts that were available when the original motion was filed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the judgment was void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) because the district court allegedly excluded key evidence and denied Plaintiff an opportunity to present evidence.
2. Whether Plaintiff's successive Rule 60(b)(4) motion could be used to relitigate alleged errors in the original summary-judgment ruling.

Disposition

writ_denied