Madura et al v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP et al

Filing 713

ORDER: The Maduras' "Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e) Standards of Final Order Denying Emergency Rule 60(b)(6) Motion for in Light of CSX Transportation Relief from July 13, 2010 Order and from July 17, 2013 SJ of Foreclosure" (Doc. # 705 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 4/7/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
ANDRZEJ MADURA and ANNA DOLINSKAMADURA,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 8:11-cv-2511-T-33TBM

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, et
al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER
This
Maduras’

cause
“Motion

comes
for

before

the

Court

Reconsideration

pursuant

Under

Rule

to

the

59(e)

Standards of Final Order Denying Emergency Rule 60(b)(6)
Motion for in Light of CSX Transportation Relief from July 13,
2010 Order and from July 17, 2013 SJ of Foreclosure”

(Doc. #

705), which was filed on March 23, 2017. The Court denies the
Motion.
I.

Background
An exhaustive discussion of the history of this case is

unwarranted at this juncture. On July 17, 2013, the Court
entered an Order granting Bank of America’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, as well as addressing a plethora of other motions.
(Doc. # 496). Among other things, the Court determined that
Bank of America was entitled to summary judgment against the
Maduras as to its foreclosure counterclaim. (Id.).

Prior to the entry of a final judgment, the Maduras filed
a motion to stay the case because their submission of a
petition for writ of mandamus to the Eleventh Circuit based on
the argument that this Court should have entered an Order of
recusal. (Doc. # 504). On August 12, 2013, the Court denied
the motion to stay. (Doc. # 520).

Thereafter, on August 13,

2013, this Court entered its Final Judgment of Foreclosure.
(Doc. # 521).

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s

Summary Judgment Order on November 10, 2014, in a lengthy and
detailed Opinion. (Doc. # 567)(Case 13-13953).

The United

States Supreme Court denied the Maduras’ petition for writ of
certiorari on October 9, 2015. (Doc. # 627).
Bank of America reports that the Maduras never paid the
total amount due and owing under the Final Judgment and the
United States Marshal held a public sale of the property on
February 11, 2016, at 2:00PM at the Manatee County Courthouse.
(Doc. # 636 at 3). Bank of America was the successful bidder.
The United States Marshal filed a Report of Sale on February
16, 2016. (Doc. # 633).

Thereafter, Bank of America filed a

Motion seeking an Order confirming the foreclosure sale. (Doc.
# 636).

The Maduras, on the other hand, filed a Motion

seeking an Order vacating the sale. (Doc. # 6 37).

On April

6, 2016, the Court granted Bank of America’s Motion to Confirm

-2-

the Foreclosure Sale and denied the Maduras’ Motion to Vacate
Foreclosure Sale. (Doc. # 639).
In response, the Maduras filed an appeal, and sought
leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. By Order of the
Eleventh Circuit, the Maduras’ appeal was determined to be
frivolous and their motion for leave to appeal in forma
pauperis was denied. (Doc. # 688).

The Eleventh Circuit

explained that the Maduras never paid the amount owing on the
mortgage, the sale was conducted in the county where the
property is located, the Bank complied with the terms provided
by the Court’s Order of foreclosure, and the notice of the
sale satisfied relevant federal and state notice requirements.
(Id.).
The Bank, as the owner of the property, filed a Motion
for Writ of Possession.

The Maduras opposed the issuance of

the Writ of Possession by arguing that their nephew, Lucas
Lapinski, signed a lease to inhabit the property for a two
year term at the rate of $639 a month. After protracted
proceedings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Writ of Possession
on January 26, 2017. (Doc. # 689). The Magistrate Judge
considered affidavits provided by the parties and determined
that the lease was not valid because it was not approved by
the Condominium Association. (Id. at 9). The Magistrate Judge
also held that “Mr. Lapinski is not paying fair market rate
-3-

for this Condominium” and found “the lease was granted Mr.
Lapinski on favorable terms below market value as a blocking
move to prevent [the Bank] from gaining possession.” (Id. at
10).

The Maduras have filed a Motion for Reconsideration

regarding the issuance of the Writ of Possession (Doc. # 692),
which will be addressed via separate Order.
On February 22, 2017, the Maduras filed a Motion for
Reconsideration “in light of controlling Eleventh Circuit law
set forth in January 31, 2017 CSX Transportation v. General
Mills.” (Doc. # 693).

At the direction of the Court, Bank of

America responded to the Motion. (Doc. # 700).

On March 8,

2017, the Court issued a detailed decision on the Motion for
Reconsideration and discussed CSX Transportation at length.
(Doc. # 702). Ultimately, the Court held: “The CSX decision is
not applicable.” (Id. at 9).
Now,

the

Maduras

seek

reconsideration

of

the

Order

denying reconsideration still predicated upon the application
of CSX Transportation.
II.

Legal Standard
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60 govern

motions for reconsideration.

Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire

Ins. Co., Case No. 8:03-cv-2378-T-17MAP, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
37718, at *6 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 30, 2005).

-4-

The time when the

party files the motion determines whether the motion will be
evaluated under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60. Id.

A Rule 59(e)

motion must be filed within 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.

Motions filed after the 28-day period will be

decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
As stated in

Florida College of Osteopathic Medicine,

Inc. v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1308
(M.D.

Fla.

1998),

“A

motion

for

reconsideration

must

demonstrate why the court should reconsider its past decision
and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to
induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Further, “in
the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial
resources, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly.” Lamar Adver. of Mobile, Inc. v. City of
Lakeland, 189 F.R.D. 480, 489 (M.D. Fla. 1999).
Likewise, Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., is available to
relieve a party from a final judgment or order for the
following reasons:
(1)
(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
newly
discovered
evidence
that,
with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);
fraud . . . misrepresentation, or misconduct
by the opposing party;
the judgment is void;
the judgment has been satisfied . . .; or
-5-

(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Whether asserted under either Rule 59 or 60, “a motion
for reconsideration is not the proper forum for the party to
vent dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning.” Ludwig, 2005
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37718, at *11 (internal citation omitted).
III. Analysis
When the Maduras initially suggested that a change in
Eleventh Circuit case law paved the way to relief in their
favor, this Court diligently investigated their contentions.
The Court researched the issue but ultimately decided that it
was not necessary to vacate any order or judgment. (Doc. #
702).
another

Now, like so many times before, the Maduras seek yet
try.

They

incorrectly

insist

that

the

Court’s

analysis was wrong, and reassert their arguments under CSX
Transportation.

But, the Court does not permit motions for

reconsideration to be filed seriatim into infinity.

Finding

no error, and having discussed CSX Transportation at length in
a

prior

Order,

the

Court

denies

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration. See Rasmussen v. Cent. Fla. Council Boy
Scouts of America, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-1091-Orl-19GJK, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 41216 (M.D. Fla. May 22, 2008)(“Successive motions
for reconsideration raising grounds that were or should have

-6-

been known or asserted when the first motion was filed are
improper.”).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
The Maduras’ “Motion for Reconsideration Under Rule 59(e)
Standards of Final Order Denying Emergency Rule 60(b)(6)
Motion for in Light of CSX Transportation Relief from July 13,
2010 Order and from July 17, 2013 SJ of Foreclosure”

(Doc. #

705) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 7th
day of April, 2017.

-7-