Dudley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 6

ORDER denying 5 Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/23/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
DIVISION
ERIC DUDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:14-cv-1030-T-33TGW

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Eric Dudley’s May 20, 2014, “Petition/Motion for Reargument or
En Banc of Appeal to the Honorable U.S. District Court of
Florida” (Doc. # 5), which the Court construes as a Motion for
Reconsideration.

For the reasons that follow, the Court

denies the Motion.
I.

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) governs the present

Motion for Reconsideration.

Ludwig v. Liberty Mutual Fire

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

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).
This

Court

recognizes

three

grounds

to

justify

reconsideration of a prior order under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to
correct clear error or manifest injustice.” Fla. College of
Osteopathic Med., Inc., 12 F. Supp. 2d at 1308.
Further, as explained in Ludwig, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
37718, at *8, “This Court will not reconsider its judgment
when the motion for reconsideration fails to raise new issues
but, instead, relitigates that which the Court previously
found lacking.” Id. at 9-10.

In addition, “a motion for

reconsideration is not the proper forum for the party to vent
dissatisfaction

with

the

Court’s

reasoning.”

Id.

at

11.

(citation omitted).
II.

Analysis
On May 1, 2014, the Court dismissed Dudley’s construed

pro se Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

-2-

(Doc. # 2).1
Complaint

In that Order, the Court evaluated Dudley’s

and

the

attachments

thereto

and

came

to

the

conclusion that Dudley sought appellate relief in this Court
with respect to state court foreclosure proceedings. For
instance, in Dudley’s Complaint, Dudley pointed to various
alleged errors that transpired during the course of his state
court foreclosure case, including the assertion that “no
original promissory note was filed in the court to show proof
of claim of ownership of the property. A copy of the Mortgage
instrument is not a negotiable instrument. Hence, because the
bank undoubtedly sold the original the debt is dead and the
mortgage is settled. There is no contract and no mortgage.
This fact was ignored or omitted by the lower courts.” (Doc.
# 1 at 2).

Dudley also claimed in the Complaint that “the

attorney(s) for the Bank failed to state a claim under oath
but instead presented hearsay information which is unlawful
pursuant to FRCP RULE 802, 12(b)6.” (Id.).

1

The document that the Court construed as Dudley’s
Complaint was titled: “Notice of Appeal to U.S. District Court
of Florida Appellant’s Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District
Court of Florida due to Errors under Color of Law and Color of
Office Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6(1)(2), 42 USC 1983, 18 USC 241
and 242, 60(b) Petition to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Due to Full Settlement of the
Accounting by Private Negotiable Debt Instrument, Pursuant to
HJR-192 of June 5, 1933, P.L. 73-10 In Consideration of U.S.
Constitution Article I, Section 10 Counterclaim.” (Doc. # 1).
-3-

Although Dudley referenced several federal statutes in
the Complaint, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court found that
Dudley

sought

tribunal.2

to

appeal

the

decision

of

a

state

court

In dismissing the case, the Court explained that

the federal district courts do not sit in an appellate
capacity to review state court decisions.

See Sitton v.

United States, 413 F.2d 1386, 1389 (5th Cir. 1969)(“The
jurisdiction possessed by the District Courts of the United
States is strictly original.

A federal district court has no

original jurisdiction to reverse or modify the judgment of a
state court.
appellate

arm

Federal courts have no authority to act as an
of

the

state

courts.”);

Harper

v.

Chase

Manhattan Bank, 138 F. App’x 130, 132 (11th Cir. 2005)(“Under
the Rooker-Feldman abstention doctrine, it is well-settled
that a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review,
reverse, or invalidate a final state court decision.”).
At this juncture, Dudley seeks an Order reconsidering the
dismissal

of

his

Complaint.

2

However,

Dudley

has

not

A mere reference to federal law is not enough to
establish federal question jurisdiction.
A case “arises
under” federal law where federal law creates the cause of
action or where a substantial disputed issue of federal law is
a necessary element of a state law claim. See Franchise Tax
Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,
463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1991). In this case, the Complaint does not
identify any federal issue upon which the Court could
predicate the exercise of its federal question jurisdiction.
-4-

identified an intervening change in controlling law, the
availability of new evidence, or the need to correct clear
error or manifest injustice.

Instead, Dudley attempts to

relitigate issues already decided by this Court.
Dudley suggests that the "Court has jurisdiction to deal
with matters of the People;" but further indicates: “The
Honorable Court is petitioned to Dismiss the Case in favor of
the

Appellant

for

lack

of

personal/subject

jurisdiction, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6(1)(2).

matter

The Bank has

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
(Doc.

#

5

at

2).

This

statement

in

the

Motion

for

Reconsideration, among other statements, demonstrates that
Dudley is seeking appellate relief in this Court regarding a
state court case brought by JP Morgan Chase Bank.3
Court

does

not

have

jurisdiction

to

review

As the

state

decisions, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

court
The

Court did not have jurisdiction over the Complaint when the
case was filed, and nothing in the Motion for Reconsideration
persuades the Court that the requirements of subject matter
jurisdiction have been satisfied.
Accordingly, it is hereby

3

It is also notable that Dudley describes himself as
“Attorney-in-fact for the Appellant” in the signature block of
the Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. # 5 at 3).
-5-

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
Plaintiff Eric Dudley’s “Petition/Motion for Reargument
or En Banc of Appeal to the Honorable U.S. District Court of
Florida” (Doc. # 5) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this 23rd
day of May, 2014.

Copies:
All Parties of Record

-6-