BLACH v. DIAZ-VERSON
Filing
465
ORDER denying 459 Motion for Reconsideration Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 07/10/2019 (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
HAROLD BLACH,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
SAL DIAZ-VERSON,
*
Defendant.
CASE NO. 4:15-MC-5 (CDL)
*
O R D E R
Third-party
claimant
Patricia
Diaz-Verson
seeks
reconsideration of the Court’s most recent order of disbursement
(ECF No. 458).
In that order, the Court instructed the Clerk to
enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Harold Blach with regard to
the writs of garnishment issued on January 16, 2019, February
13,
2019,
Therefore,
and
March
Patricia’s
29,
2019
“motion
is
(ECF
Nos.
properly
424,
434,
441).
characterized
as
a
motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e).”
Mays v. U.S. Postal Serv., 122 F.3d 43, 46
(11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (construing a post-judgment motion
for reconsideration as a Rule 59 motion to alter or amend the
judgment).
are
“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion
newly-discovered
fact.”
evidence
or
manifest
errors
of
law
or
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Kellogg,
197 F.3d 116, 119 (11th Cir. 1999)).
Importantly, such motions
cannot be used “to relitigate old matters, raise argument or
present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry
of judgment.”
Id. (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)); accord Mays,
122
F.3d
at
46
(“[W]here
a
party
attempts
to
introduce
previously unsubmitted evidence on a motion to reconsider, the
court should not grant the motion absent some showing that the
evidence was not available during the pendency of the motion.”).1
Patricia’s present motion for reconsideration relies on the
same
arguments
disbursement.
her
she
made
in
her
briefing
on
her
motion
for
The Court rejected those arguments when it denied
motion.
reconsideration.
Patricia
offered
no
valid
grounds
for
Her motion (ECF No. 459) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 10th day of July, 2019.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
1
There is a similar standard for motions for reconsideration that do
not address a final judgment. Generally, such motions will only be
granted if the movant demonstrates that (1) there was an intervening
development or change in controlling law, (2) new evidence has been
discovered, or (3) the court made a clear error of law or fact.
Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F. Supp. 2d 1363, 1378 (M.D. Ga. 2009).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?