FAULCONER v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING 56 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by U.S. District Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 12/19/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
NANCY FAULCONER,
Plaintiff,
v.
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:12-CV-246 (MTT)

ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 56) of Judge
Hugh Lawson’s Order (Doc. 55) dismissing Defendant Home America Mortgage, Inc.,
due to the Plaintiff’s failure to effect service of process in the time prescribed by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).1
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.6, “Motions for Reconsideration shall not be filed as a
matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga., L.R. 7.6 (emphasis added). Indeed,
“[r]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly.” Bingham v. Nelson, 2010 WL 339806, at *1 (M.D. Ga.) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). It “is appropriate only if the movant demonstrates (1) that
there has been an intervening change in the law, (2) that new evidence has been
discovered which was not previously available to the parties in the exercise of due
diligence, or (3) that the court made a clear error of law.” Id. “In order to demonstrate
clear error, the party moving for reconsideration must do more than simply restate [her]
prior arguments, and any arguments which the party inadvertently failed to raise earlier

1
This was Judge Lawson’s case before it was transferred to the undersigned on December 2,
2013.

are deemed waived.” McCoy v. Macon Water Authority, 966 F. Supp. 1209, 1222-23
(M.D. Ga. 1997).
The Plaintiff has not met this burden. She has not alleged an intervening change
in the law nor presented new evidence previously unavailable to her. Moreover, the
Court is not persuaded that Judge Lawson’s ruling was clearly erroneous. Although the
Plaintiff has subsequently suggested settlement discussions and an earlier stay in the
case are to blame for untimely service, those events occurred well after October 27,
2012, the deadline for effecting service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Furthermore,
there is no indication the Plaintiff attempted to serve Home America after the stay was
lifted until Judge Lawson brought this issue to her attention. Even if the Plaintiff
succeeded in serving Home America on November 21, 2013 by mailing process to the
Secretary of State’s office pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4(e)(1), the Plaintiff has failed to
show good cause for blowing the deadline by more than a year.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of December, 2013.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

-2