Ward et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 49 Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 1/21/2014. (ns)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 13-61554-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
CLYDE WARD, CLYDE MCPHATTER, LEROY
WILLIAMS, and MAURICE SYMONETTE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, LOAN CITY
MORTGAGE, WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
MORTGAGE ELECTRONICS REGISTRATION
SYSTEM, and WASHINGTON MUTUAL
SECURITIES,
Defendants.
/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Reconsider
[DE 49] ("Motion"). The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record in this case, and
is otherwise advised in the premises.
I.

BACKGROUND
This action relates to a residential mortgage encumbering a parcel of real

property at 2920 N.E. 55th Place, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (the "Property"). See DE 1;
DE 1-2 at 1. The Property has been the subject of a lengthy and oft-delayed
foreclosure proceeding pending since 2007. DE 19 at 2–3; DE 19-1. On July 18, 2013,
Plaintiffs filed the instant action, contesting the foreclosure as illegal and seeking
injunctive relief prohibiting the foreclosure, a declaration that the underlying debt be
declared void, restitution, a declaration to quiet title of the Property, $5 million in
damages, and other varied relief. DE 1 at 37–38. The Court twice dismissed Plaintiffs'

operative pleading herein with leave to re-plead, on the basis of Plaintiffs'
noncompliance with the applicable pleading standards. DE 32 & 41. On January 15,
2014, in light of Plaintiffs' repeated failure to remedy the shortcomings of their
pleadings, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice. DE 47 & 48.
Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of this action.
Plaintiffs argue in their Motion that their case is factually similar to other cases which
have resulted in varied relief to the plaintiffs. DE 49 at 1. Plaintiffs ask the Court to
afford them relief on the basis of this similarity. Plaintiffs do not specify whether they
seek reconsideration under Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Three grounds justify reconsideration of an earlier order under Rule 59(e): "(1) an

intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Williams v. Cruise Ships
Catering & Serv. Int'l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1357–58 (S.D. Fla. 2004). A motion
for reconsideration is not a tool for relitigating what a court has already decided.
See Reyher v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 900 F. Supp. 428, 430 (M.D. Fla. 1995).
Rather, the motion "must demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision
and set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse
its prior decision." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Reconsideration of a previous
order is "an extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly." Williams, 320 F. Supp.
2d at 1358 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Rule 60(b), on the other hand, sets forth the following potential grounds for relief
from a district court's judgment or order:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
2

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not
have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based
on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under the catch-all provision of Rule 60(b)(6) "is an
extraordinary remedy which may be invoked only upon a showing of exceptional
circumstances." Cavaliere v. Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
In their Motion, Plaintiffs represent that factual similarities exist between their
claims and the claims of plaintiffs who have prevailed in other actions. DE 49 at 1.
Plaintiffs request that the Court therefore reconsider its dismissal of this action and "give
[Plaintiffs] the same rights" as the plaintiffs in those other actions. Id. Plaintiffs,
however, have articulated no facts that would afford relief under the potentially
applicable Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) in relation to the Court's dismissal
of this action on the basis of Plaintiffs' repeated failure to comply with the applicable
rules of pleading. Nor do Plaintiffs make a showing of such extraordinary
circumstances that might justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6). The Court therefore will
deny Plaintiffs' Second Motion to Reconsider, no grounds for relief from the Court's
dismissal of this action having been shown.

3

It is accordingly ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Reconsider [DE 49] is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 21st day of January, 2014.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF
Clyde Ward (pro se)
2920 N.E. 55th Place
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Clyde McPhatter (pro se)
2920 N.E. 55th Place
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Leroy Williams (pro se)
2920 N.E. 55th Place
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
Maurice Symonette (pro se)
2920 N.E. 55th Place
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308

4