Bandy v. Midland Funding, LLC

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion to Amend Order of District Judge. Signed by Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 2/19/2013. (sdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NONA BANDY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-00491-KD-C

ORDER
This action is before the Court on the Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate (Doc. 21) filed
by Plaintiff Nona Bandy (“Bandy”) pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Bandy moves that the Court alter, amend, or vacate the Judgment (Doc. 20) entered
in this case on January 18, 2013, which dismissed Bandy’s federal claims with prejudice and her
state law claims without prejudice. The motion, filed February 14, 2013, is timely. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Bandy claims that she is due relief under Rule 59(e) because the Court erred in
issuing its Order (Doc. 19) granting Defendant Midland Funding, LLC (“Midland”)’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings on her federal claims. Specifically, Bandy challenges the Court’s
determination that she failed to allege a cause of action against Midland under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
The decision to grant or deny a motion to alter, amend or vacate is left to the discretion of
this Court. See, e.g., Shuford v. Fid. Nat’l Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir.
2007). Rule 59(e) does not “give the moving party another ‘bite at the apple.’ ” Mincey v.
Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 n.69 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Rather, “[i]n the interests of
finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources, reconsideration of an order is an
extraordinary remedy and is employed sparingly.” Gougler v. Sirius Prods., Inc., 370 F. Supp.

2d 1185, 1189 (S.D. Ala. 2005). “The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact. 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.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal citations and
quotations marks omitted).
For the reasons stated in Midland’s Response (Doc. 22) to the motion,1 it is ORDERED
that Bandy’s Motion to Alter, Amend or Vacate (Doc. 21) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this the 19th day of February 2013.
/s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

A district court is permitted to incorporate a party’s arguments to serve as its explanation for its
ruling. See United States v. Valencia-Trujillo, 462 F. App’x 894, 897 (11th Cir. 2012) (“District court
orders ‘should contain sufficient explanations of their rulings so as to provide this Court with an
opportunity to engage in meaningful appellate review.’ Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir.
2007). That principle, however, does not prohibit a district court from incorporating a party's arguments
as the basis and explanation for its ruling.”).

2