[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]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-