Mortensen et al v. Bank of America NA et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 89 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by Judge Clay D. Land on 05/04/2012.(aaf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
ROBERT MORTENSEN and
LINDA MORTENSEN,

*
*

Plaintiffs,
*
vs.

CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00013 (CDL)
*

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL,
*
Defendants.
*
O R D E R
The Court previously granted Defendant Bank of America’s
(“BOA”) Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 73) and
awarded attorney’s fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 to be paid by Plaintiffs’ counsel, Henry N. Portner
(“Portner”) and Kristine R. Tarrer, in the amount of $19,001.06
and costs against Plaintiffs, Robert and Linda Mortensen, in the
amount of $4.30.

Mortensen v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 3:10-CV-13

(CDL), 2012 WL 1424502, at *5 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 24, 2012).

Portner

filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of sanctions
against counsel and request for oral argument (ECF No. 89).

For

the following reasons, Portner’s motion (ECF No. 89) is denied.
As

the

Court

previously

explained

when

it

denied

Plaintiffs’ earlier motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

summary judgment order in favor of BOA,1 the Eleventh Circuit has
recognized that reconsideration is justified where there is: (1)
new

evidence;

(2)

an

intervening

change

or

development

in

controlling law; and (3) the need to correct the court’s clear
error or manifest injustice.

Bd. of Trs. of Bay Med. Ctr. v.

Humana Military Healthcare Servs., Inc., 447 F.3d 1370, 1377
(11th Cir. 2006).

The Court finds that counsel has failed to

establish that the previous order should be reconsidered on any
of these grounds, and therefore, the motion for reconsideration
must be denied.

This conclusion is so obvious from the present

record that oral argument would not be helpful to the Court’s
resolution

of

the

pending

motion,

and

therefore,

counsel’s

request for oral argument is also denied.
CONCLUSION
Based

on

Reconsideration

the
of

forgoing,

Order

for

Plaintiff’s

Sanctions

Motion

Against

for

Counsel

and

Request for Oral Argument (ECF No. 70) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 4th day of May, 2012.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

Mortensen v. Bank of Am., N.A., No.
6740742, at *1 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 23, 2011).

2

3:10-CV-13

(CDL),

2011

WL