the court ordered, nor had any party presented any arguments as to why the injunction should be modified to substantially diminish the payments that Belaval was entitled to as a result of the November 1, 2004 injunction. Belaval was given no notice or opportunity to object to this modification. There is an initial question whether the district court had authority to act on its own initiative. This circuit has not decided whether a district court may act sua sponte to modify an injunction under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) or Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The plain text of Rule 59(e) does not speak expressly to that question. And whether Rule 60(b) bars a court from sua sponte issuing relief from judgment is an issue that has divided the circuits. Compare Eaton v. Jamrog, 984 F.2d 760, 762 (6th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>), and Dow v. Baird, 389 F.2d 882, 884-85 (10th
holding that rule 60b bars sua sponte relief holding that a court may sua sponte take judicial notice of its docket holding attorneys failure to object does not warrant rule 60b relief holding that the court can raise res judicata sua sponte even on appeal holding that  105 allows sua sponte transfer under rule 1014a2