March 5, 2001. SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. This document was prepared by Attorney Stenmoe in support of LAMBROS February 23, 2001, RULE 59(e) MOTION. This motion is a total of two (2) pages.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
CHARLES W. FAULKNER, SUED AS ESTATE/WILL/BUSINESS INSURANCE OF DECEASED ATTORNEY CHARLES W. FAULKNER
SHEILA REGAN FAULKNER
FAULKNER & FAULKNER, Attorneys at Law
JOHN & JANE DOE
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
John Gregory Lambros, ("Lambros") submits this Supplemental Memorandum in Support of his Motion to Alter or Amend Judge Doty's judgment dismissing the case. Plaintiff personally filed with this Court his Memorandum in Support. Plaintiff has requested that we file the following to supplement his submission.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure serves to allow a district court to rectify its own mistakes immediately following the entry of judgment. White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982). District Courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to alter or amend judgment pursuant to this rule. Robinson v. Watts Detective Agency, 685 F.2d 729, 743 (1" Cir. 1982) (Rule 59(e) motion addressed to discretion of trial court.); In re Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996) (decision to grant or deny Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary).
End of page 1
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment may be granted when a judgment, absent amendment, results in a manifest injustice or a clear legal error. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 915 F. Supp. 1333, 1377 (D. Del. 1994)(motion to amend damage award granted to prevent manifest injustice). It is Plaintiffs position that this Court erroneously recognized an unwarranted extension of the ruling in Dziubak v. Mott, 503 N.W. 2d 771 (Minn 1993), in that it is inconsistent with the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Ferri v. Ackerman, 444 U.S. 193 (1979). In addition, the ruling of this Court has effectively denied Plaintiff the right to a remedy for the malpractice of his former criminal attorney, which is contrary to the Minnesota Constitution. Minn. Const. Art. I, Section 8 ("Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs which he may receive to his person, property or character . . . ). Furthermore, as noted by Plaintiff in his individual submission, it would be manifestly unjust and improper to apply retroactively a new interpretation of law to the instant case.
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff respectfully request that this Court amend or alter its judgment and deny the Defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
Signed: Gregory James Stenmoe
BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A.
For more information write (snail mail) JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS directly at:
JOHN GREGORY LAMBROS
Prisoner No. 00436-124
U. S. Penitentiary Leavenworth
PO Box 1000
Leavenworth, KS 66048-1000
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE IN MY BOYCOTT OF BRAZILIAN PRODUCTS.