SHAW v. ONE WEST BANK, FSB et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: Plaintiff's 22 MOTION to Stay Pending the Disposition of a Motion Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 62(B)(2) and (3); it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to stay is DENIED. Signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on 1/13/2014. (tcb)

SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GREG SHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 13-cv-1526 (RLW)

ONEWEST BANK, FSB et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Greg Shaw’s motion to stay the Court’s
memorandum opinion and order1 granting in part and denying in part Defendants McCurdy &
Candler, LLC (“McCurdy”) and OneWest Bank, FSBs’ (“OneWest”) motions to dismiss the
plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No. 22. The Court denies this motion.
Although styled as a “motion to stay,” the plaintiff’s motion is effectively a motion for
reconsideration because it cites Rule 59(e) and requests the Court to “alter or amend judgment …
for errors and omissions made by the court.” See Dkt. No. 22 at 1. A Rule 59(e) motion “is
discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening
change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice.” Dyson v. Dist. of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 420 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In
support of his motion, the plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly found that Mr. Shaw’s loan
was transferred to Defendant OneWest, and that the federal district court for the Northern
District of Georgia is the proper court for this litigation. See Dkt. No. 22 at 2. These arguments

1

The Court initially issued this memorandum opinion and order on December 18, 2013. On
January 2, 2014, the Court granted OneWest’s motion for reconsideration in order to clarify the
scope of the Court’s order.

do not satisfy the plaintiff’s high burden. See, e.g., SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
Labs., SA, 915 F. Supp. 2d 69, 72 (D.D.C. 2013) (“A motion for reconsideration under Rule
59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already
ruled.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to stay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed by Judge Robert L.
Wilkins
DN: cn=Judge Robert L. Wilkins,
o=U.S. District Court, ou=Chambers
of Honorable Robert L. Wilkins,
email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2014.01.13 14:50:01 -05'00'

Date: January 13, 2014

ROBERT L. WILKINS
United States District Judge

2