Tumminello v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding only that Rule 60(b)(4) motions are not subject to the “reasonable time” requirement
• holding that a motion to change a dismissal without prejudice to a dismissal with preju- dice was a Rule 59(e) motion because that type of motion seeks a “change in the judgment,” not merely a change in “what was due because of the judgment” (quoting White, 455 U.S. at 452)
• explaining that when a district court grants an extension of time to file an amended complaint requested before the original deadline set forth in an order of dismissal has passed, the order of dismissal becomes final on the date of the new deadline
• providing authority from the First, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits to this effect
• “The strictures of Rule 59(e) remain dormant, however, until a final judgment has been entered.”
• “Rule 59(e) remain[s] dormant . . . until a final judgment has been entered.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).