United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division
TERRENCE W. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on defendant's motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Rules 60(a) and 60(b)(4) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has
responded, defendant has replied, and the matter is ripe for
ruling. For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion
purposes of this motion the Court will review only the
pertinent procedural background of this matter. On May 28,
2014, the Court entered judgment in plaintiffs favor after
granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and denying
defendant's motion for summary judgment. On September 25,
2014, the Court denied defendant's motion to alter or
amend the judgment. By opinion entered March 11, 2015, the
court of appeals affirmed this court's judgment.
ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Laschkewitsch, 597
Fed.Appx. 159 (4th Cir. 2015). On December 7, 2015, the
United States Supreme Court denied defendant's petition
for writ of certiorari, 136 S.Ct. 593 (2015), and on February
29, 2016, the Supreme Court denied defendant's petition
for rehearing. 136 S.Ct. 1251 (2016).
3, 2017, defendant, proceeding in this matter pro
se, filed the instant motion. Defendant seeks relief
from judgment for oversight, omissions, and want of
jurisdiction. Defendant contends that this Court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs claims and
that his Rule 60 motion demonstrates his meritorious defenses
to plaintiffs claims.
Civ. P. 60(a) provides that a court may correct clerical
mistakes or mistakes arising from oversight or omission.
See also Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Frisco Transp.
Co., 358 U.S. 133, 145 (1958) ("It is axiomatic
that courts have the power and the duty to correct judgments
which contain clerical errors or judgments which have issued
due to inadvertence or mistake."). Rule 60(a) is not
limited to correction of typographical and clerical errors,
and it may also be relied upon to resolve an ambiguity in a
prior order or in making corrections that are consistent with
the court's intention. Sartin v. McNair Law Firm
PA, 756 F.3d 259, 266 (4th Cir. 2014) (listing cases).
Thus, "the scope of a court's authority under Rule
60(a) to make corrections to an order or judgment is
circumscribed by the court's intent when it issued the
order or j udgment." Id.
has failed to identify any clerical mistake or correction
necessary to conform the judgment to the Court's intent.
Defendant's request for relief under Rule 60(a) is
Civ. P. 60(b)(4) provides for relief from final judgment
where the judgment is void. "An order is 'void'
for purposes of Rule 60(b)(4) only if the court rendering the
decision lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or
acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law."
Wendt v. Leonard, 431 F.3d 410, 412 (4th Cir. 2005).
Where, as here, a judgment is challenged as void on the basis
of the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, the
jurisdictional error must be deemed egregious before the
judgment will be treated as void, and it must be demonstrated
that there was a '"total want of jurisdiction'
and no arguable basis on which [the court] could have rested
a finding that it had jurisdiction." Id. at 413
(quoting Nemaizer v. Baker, 793 F.2d 58, 65 (2nd
challenges plaintiffs standing to have brought this action.
Federal courts may consider only cases or controversies, and
"the doctrine of standing has always been an essential
component" of the case or controversy requirement.
Marshall v. Meadows, 105 F.3d 904, 906 (4th Cir.
1997) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504
U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). To demonstrate standing, plaintiffs
must establish that they have suffered an injury in fact that
is concrete and particularized, that the injury is fairly
traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and that
the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision
from the Court. Chambers Med. Techs. of S.C, Inc. v.
Bryant, 52 F.3d 1252, 1265 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing
Lujan, 504 U.S. at 555). "The standing doctrine
 depends not upon the merits, but on whether the plaintiff
is the proper party to bring the suit." White Tail
Park, Inc. v. Stroube, 413 F.3d 451, 460-61 (4th Cir.
2005) (citations and quotations omitted).
has plainly failed to demonstrate that there was no arguable
basis for this Court to determine that it had subject matter
jurisdiction over this action. First, defendant agreed that
the Court had subject matter jurisdiction. [DE 12]. Moreover,
plaintiffs suit was based on a concrete and particularized
injury in fact, namely its issuance of a life insurance
policy based on what would be determined to be a fraudulent
application as well as questions concerning the propriety of
the death benefit owed on the death of the insured. The
injury to plaintiff was fairly traceable to defendant as
defendant made fraudulent statements and material
misrepresentations or omissions when applying for the policy,
and the injury was redressed by an order of this Court
declaring the rights of the parties to the policy proceeds
and that defendant breached his agent contract and committed
bottom, defendant seeks an opportunity to re-litigate this
action through the filing of a motion pursuant to Rule 60.
Defendant has failed, however, to come forward with any basis
which would support correcting or granting relief from the
judgment in this matter and his motion [DE 180] is DENIED.
Defendant's motion to seal ...