UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30171
Summary Calendar
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PATRICK PENDERGRAFT, ET AL.,
Defendants,
KOURTNEY MARTIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CV-545-E)
September 17, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kourtney Martin appeals the district court’s granting of
summary judgment to Travelers Property Casualty Corporation
(“Travelers”) and the district court’s denial of her motion for
reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment. Since her appeal
of the summary judgment order was not timely, this court lacks
jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the underlying judgment.
Furthermore, although this court has jurisdiction over her appeal
of the denial of the motion to reconsider, we find that the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
district court did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, affirm.
In order for this court to have jurisdiction over the
appellant’s appeal, the appeal must be timely filed. See United
States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960, 961 (5th Cir. 1998). Since Ms.
Martin’s motion to reconsider was filed more than ten days after
the order granting summary judgment was entered, her Notice of
Appeal was not timely to stay the 30 day period for notice of
appeal of that order under Rule 4(a). See FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(1)(A), 4(a)(4), and FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a). As a result, this
court has jurisdiction to review only the motion for
reconsideration. A post-judgment motion to reconsider is a Rule
60(b) motion if the motion is filed more than ten days after the
underlying judgment is entered. See Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat
Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 1986). Ms. Martin’s
motion is, therefore, a Rule 60(b) motion, and the standard of
review is abuse of discretion. See Halicki v. Louisiana Casino
Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119
S. Ct. 1143 (1999); Bohlin Co. v. Bunning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 353 (5th
Cir. 1993)(under the abuse of discretion standard, the court’s
decision need only be reasonable).
Having reviewed the record, this court finds that the
district court reasonably found that the policy exclusion applied
since: (1) assuming that the appellant is correct in arguing that
Louisiana law applies, the rental agreement was a valid contract
even though a minor was a party to the contract (see LA. CIV. CODE
ANN. art. 1919 (West 1999)), and (2) a jet ski is a “watercraft” as
that term is used in the insurance policy. Thus, the district
court did not abuse its discretion, and this court AFFIRMS.