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