Stovall v. Hancock Bank of Alabama, Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER: that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 14 is DENIED. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 8/1/2013. (jg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION VERONICA STOVALL, Plaintiff, v. HANCOCK BANK OF ALABAMA, INC., d/b/a WHITNEY BANK, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.: 2:12-cv-1036-MEF (WO – Do Not Publish) ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Veronica Stovall’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider Order of 07/03/13 (Doc. #14), which requests the Court to reconsider its dismissal of all counts in Plaintiff’s Complaint except her § 1981 race discrimination claim as alleged in Count IV of the Complaint. On July 15, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Hancock Bank of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Whitney Bank (“Defendant”) to show cause why Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider should not be granted. (Doc. #15.) Defendant responded to the Court’s show cause order (Doc. #16), arguing that Plaintiff has not met her burden under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because she has not demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or clear error by the Court that would warrant reconsider of its July 3, 2013 Order. Based on the foregoing, and having considered the arguments of the parties and the record as a whole, the Court agrees with Defendant and hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #14) is DENIED. DONE this the 1st day of August, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Fuller UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?