Joe Whitcomb
In the case of Julie A. Su v. Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc., the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) filed a lawsuit against Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc., and Jack Andy Carson, seeking a preliminary injunction to inspect the defendants' marble quarry under the Mine Act. The lawsuit was initiated on September 25, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
Preliminary Injunction Granted
The court held a hearing on November 14, 2023, regarding the DOL's motion for a preliminary injunction. Six days later, on November 20, 2023, the court granted the preliminary injunction, thereby authorizing the DOL to inspect the quarry. This injunction was a critical step, allowing the DOL to carry out its inspection, which was the primary relief sought in the lawsuit.
Defendants’ Response and Initial Motions
Following the court's order, on December 18, 2023, the defendants filed a motion seeking to amend the judgment, request a new trial, and reopen the case. However, this motion was struck down by the court the following day due to its excessive length, exceeding the allowed page limit.
In response, the defendants filed another motion on December 21, 2023, this time seeking leave to refile their motion to amend the judgment, correct the previous filing, and request a new trial. The DOL opposed this motion, arguing that it was untimely and should be denied on its merits.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The court's analysis focused on the timeliness and validity of the defendants' motion. According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2), certain time extensions are not permissible, including those under Rules 50(b) and (d), 59(b), (d), and (e), and 60(b). These rules govern motions to alter or amend a judgment, new trials, and other forms of relief.
The defendants' motion for leave was filed 31 days after the court's preliminary injunction order, exceeding the 28-day limit specified under Rules 52(b) and 59. Consequently, the court determined that it could not grant an extension for the motion to amend the judgment or for a new trial, as such extensions are explicitly forbidden under Rule 6(b)(2).
Rule 60(b) Motion and Court’s Conclusion
Regarding the defendants' motion for relief under Rule 60(b), the court noted that such a motion could be filed within a reasonable time and, for certain reasons, up to one year after the entry of judgment. However, the court found that the defendants’ motion intertwined their Rule 60(b) arguments with those under Rule 59, making it difficult to separate the arguments and provide a fair opportunity for the DOL to respond.
Ultimately, the court denied the defendants' motion for leave with prejudice concerning the Rule 52 and Rule 59 motions. The court also denied the motion without prejudice concerning the Rule 60(b) motion, allowing the defendants the possibility of refiling a motion specifically under Rule 60(b).
Mootness of the Case
The DOL, in its response, indicated that it had completed the inspection of the quarry in accordance with the court’s preliminary injunction order. This statement raised questions about whether the case had become moot, given that the primary relief sought had already been achieved. The court acknowledged its responsibility to assess whether a live case or controversy remained, given the completed inspection.
As a result, the court ordered supplemental briefing from the DOL to address whether there remained any ongoing issues requiring the court's attention. The DOL was given until March 15, 2024, to submit this brief, with the defendants allowed to respond by March 29, 2024, and a final reply from the DOL due by April 5, 2024.
Conclusion
The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the limitations on extending certain timeframes under federal rules. While the defendants were unsuccessful in their attempts to extend the filing deadline for their motions, the case's mootness remains a potential issue for further consideration by the court.