Connolly v. Henderson ( 2000 )


Menu:
  •       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 00-1106
    JOANN I. CONNOLLY,
    Plaintiff, Appellant,
    v.
    WILLIAM J. HENDERSON,
    Defendant, Appellee.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Chief Judge,
    Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
    Christopher C. Trundy on brief for appellant.
    Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Rayford A.
    Farquhar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
    August 1, 2000
    Per   Curiam.          Appellant     Joanne     I.    Connolly
    (“Connolly”)     challenges       the   lower   court’s     refusal      on
    jurisdictional     grounds        to    entertain    her   motion       for
    reconsideration.    We find the district court erred.             Federal
    Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows the district court to
    reconsider a judgment if the losing party files a motion
    within ten days of judgment, and Connolly’s motion was
    timely.    Thus,    the    judgment      will   be   vacated     to   allow
    reconsideration of the dismissal order.
    Appellee William J. Henderson (“Henderson”) argues
    that judgment was appropriate anyway because Connolly’s
    claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
    But in her opposition to Henderson’s motion to dismiss,
    Connolly   presented      facts    which    arguably     might    justify
    equitable tolling of the limitations period, see, e.g.,
    Cantrell v. Knoxville Community Dev. Corp., 
    60 F.3d 1177
    (6th
    Cir. 1995); Doherty v. Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 
    16 F.3d 1386
    (3d Cir. 1994), although we have also stressed that the
    equitable tolling exception is a narrow one,                   see, e.g.,
    Nunnally v. MacCausland, 
    996 F.2d 1
    , 4 (1st Cir. 1993), and
    we take no position on her claim at this time.                  Henderson
    fails to mention or address these facts.
    Finally, though Connolly filed her opposition late
    in violation of D. Mass. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2), we will leave
    it to the district court to decide what, if any, sanction is
    appropriate for this noncompliance.
    The judgment of the lower court is vacated; the
    matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion.   See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
    -3-