Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Citibank, N.A.

Filing 98

ORDER denying 96 Motion to Alter, Amend and/or Vacate the 8/29/2011 Order and/or Motion for New Trial, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 9/29/11. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist) (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee Under the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement Related to IMPAC
Secured Assets Corporation, Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2007-1,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
JOHNNY M. PORTIS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:09cv324-WHA
)
)
(wo)
)
)

)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10cv001-WHA
)
)
)
)

ORDER
This cause is before the court on a Motion to Alter, Amend, and/or Vacate the August 29,
2011 Order and /or Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #96). In their motion, Johnny M. Portis and
Lisa H. Portis seek relief pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly-discovered evidence or
manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007 (quoting In
re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119 (11th Cir.1999)). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be used] to
relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the

entry of judgment.” Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757,
763 (11th Cir.2005)).
The court has reviewed the Portises’ motion, but, based on Eleventh Circuit authority, has
not considered new arguments, and has not considered any argument which is a departure from
the Portises’ previous position in the case. See Doc. #96 at page 18 (stating “In other words, this
Court was basing its determination that Deutsche Bank has a redemptive right to redeem on the
Portises’ erroneous statement . . . .) (emphasis in original). Upon consideration of the properlyraised arguments in the motion, the court is not persuaded that its interpretation of Alabama law,
as explained in its previous Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. #95), is a manifest error.
The Portises also are not entitled to relief pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, final judgment not yet having been entered in this case, and there further being
no basis for such relief.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Alter, Amend, and/or Vacate the
August 29, 2011 Order and /or Motion for a New Trial (Doc. #96) is DENIED.

Done this 29th day of September, 2011.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE