The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shadur, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In this diversity action Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank") has sued
Bearcat Tire, A.G. ("Bearcat"), Jordan Fishman ("Fishman") and
Louis Fishman & Co. ("Company"). Citibank alleges Bearcat
defaulted on a promissory note (the "Note") (Count I), Fishman
defaulted on a personal guaranty of the Note (Count II) and
Bearcat transferred borrowed funds to Company in fraud of
Bearcat's creditor Citibank (Count III). This Court's August
24, 1982 Order (the "Order") granted Citibank a judgment by
confession against Bearcat. Bearcat has moved under
Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 59(e) to "vacate, alter or amend" that
judgment. Fishman has moved for dismissal under Rule
12(b)(6).*fn1 For the reasons stated in this memorandum
opinion and order, both Bearcat's and Fishman's motions are
In January 1982 Bearcat executed and delivered to Citibank the
Note in the principal amount of $551,282, consolidating and
renewing five previous demand notes (the "previous
notes").*fn3 After making several payments of principal and
interest on the Note, Bearcat tendered a payment by a check
then returned for insufficient funds. Since May Bearcat has
made no further payments on the Note despite Citibank's demand.
In accordance with the Note's confession of judgment clause,
Citibank designated an attorney to appear for Bearcat before
this Court. On Citibank's motion judgment was confessed via the
Order in the sum of $462,884.17 (representing $416,281.99 in
principal amount, $42,202.18 in interest, and $4,400 in
Bearcat's Rule 59(e) Motion
Adoption of Rule 59(e) confirmed this Court's inherent power to
alter or amend its judgments. White v. New Hampshire Dep't of
Employment Security, 455 U.S. 445, 449-51, 102 S.Ct. 1162,
1165-66, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982).*fn5 Motions under Rule 59
are addressed to this Court's sound discretion. See 6A Moore,
Federal Practice § 59.05, at 59-73 (1982). As with similar
Rule 60(b) motions, a Rule 59(e) motion will be granted if the
movant makes a "proper showing" of the grounds for relief. Cf.
Smith v. Widman Trucking & Excavating, Inc., 627 F.2d 792, 795
(7th Cir. 1980) (discussing Rule 60(b)).
Though a Rule 59(e) motion apparently may raise any ground in
its claim for relief, the motion itself should state its
grounds with the particularity required by Rule 7(b)(1).
Martinez v. Trainor, 556 F.2d 818, 819-20 (7th Cir.
1977).*fn6 Bearcat's motion is not as precise as Martinez
may require, but in sum Bearcat claims:
1. It executed the Note under duress.
2. Judgment was confessed by a member of the same law firm
that prepared the Note and that represents Citibank in this
3. Citibank's judgment was excessive.
It would not be hyperbolic to term those "grounds" frivolous.
Citibank accompanied its Complaint with documentary evidence
and its motion for judgment with affidavits. Bearcat has not
contested the authenticity of Citibank's documents, and it has
not tendered any factual showing of its own.*fn7