Lettieri v. Hostess Brands LLC

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
DAVID C. LETTIERI,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO. 24-3064-JWL
HOSTESS BRANDS LLC,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff brought this pro se civil action. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. On August 2, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order (Doc. 8)
dismissing this case for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff appealed, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed
the decision of this Court on May 15, 2025 (Doc. 20).
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Doc. 21) filed on April 6,
2026. Because Plaintiff’s motion was not filed within 28 days after the entry of the judgment, the
Court will treat it as a motion under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or
amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.”); see also
Weitz v. Lovelace Health System Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1178 (10th Cir. 2000).
Rule 60(b) provides in relevant part that:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic
or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied,
Case 5:24-cv-03064-JWL Document 22 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 3

2
released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has
been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
A Rule 60(b) motion provides extraordinary relief which “may only be granted in
exceptional circumstances.” Amoco Oil Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
231 F.3d 694, 697 (10th Cir. 2000). The decision to grant such relief “is extraordinary and may
only be granted in exceptional circumstances.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
1009 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff states that he bases his motion on “error in law.” (Doc. 21, at 2.) He seems to
argue that New York state law should have applied to his action. However, the Court considered
and rejected Plaintiff’s state law claims. (See Doc. 8, at 4-5.) Revisiting issues already addressed
“is not the purpose of a motion to reconsider,” and “advanc[ing] new arguments or supporting
facts which were otherwise available for presentation when the original . . . motion was briefed”
is likewise inappropriate. Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff has not shown that relief under Rule 60(b) is warranted. Plaintiff has failed to
provide any justification for reopening this case more than a year and a half years after it was
dismissed. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to reopen this case for
purposes of entering this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (Doc. 21) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to close this case.
Case 5:24-cv-03064-JWL Document 22 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated April 7, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:24-cv-03064-JWL Document 22 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 3