Wilson et al v. BB&T Mortgage

Filing 120

ORDER denying 97 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration; denying 100 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The following motions are now MOOT based on the above denial: Plaintiffs' 102 Motion for Order; Plaintiffs' 103 Motion for Sanctions; Plaintiffs' 116 Motion for Order, and Plaintiffs' 117 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Richard W. Story on 4/15/11. (cem)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHARLES & VERDELL
WILSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
BB&T MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
1:10-CV-1234-RWS

ORDER
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
[97], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [100], Plaintiffs’
Motion for Order [102], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [103], Plaintiffs’ Motion
for Order [116], and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [117]. After a review of the
record, the Court enters the following Order.
A. Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in the Superior Court of Fulton
County, Georgia, and the case was removed to the Northern District of Georgia on
April 23, 2010. Dkt. No. [1]. Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleged claims for
violations of O.C.G.A. § 11-3-308 and O.C.G.A. § 44-14-38, 162(b), 180. Dkt.

AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

No. [34]. Subsequently, Defendant brought a Motion to Dismiss which was
granted by this Court on November 23, 2010. Dkt. No. [95]. As well, that Order
denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions finding neither prejudice nor Rule 11
compliance and denied their prior Motion to Amend citing futility . Id. Plaintiffs
bring the present Motion for Reconsideration alleging that their Amended
Complaint stated enough facts to prove that they are entitled to relief. Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. No. [97] at 21-23.
Local Rule 7.2E provides that “[m]otions for reconsideration shall not be
filed as a matter of routine practice,” but only when “a party or attorney for a party
believes it is absolutely necessary.” “Such absolute necessity arises where there
is ‘(1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in
controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact.’" Jones v.
Zenk, 495 F. Supp. 2d 1289, 1310 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (citing Bryan v. Murphy, 246
F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258-59 (N.D. Ga. 2003)). Furthermore, “[m]otions for
reconsideration may not be used as a vehicle to "’repackage familiar arguments to
test whether the court will change its mind.’" Jones, 495 F. Supp. 2d at 1310
(citing Bryan, 246 F. Supp. 2d at 1259).
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration does not allege that there have been
any developments in the facts or law, or that the dismissal of their case was in clear
2
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

error. Plaintiffs merely restate paragraphs from the Complaint [1] and the
Amended Complaint [34]. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. No. [97]
at 2, 12. The fact that Plaintiffs do not agree with the Court’s decision is not a
ground for relief. Thus, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
B. Remaining Motions
Plaintiffs also bring a Motion to File Amended Complaint [100]. They state
that they “have already made their arguments” and are only “amending for the sole
purpose of correcting technicalities if necessary.” Plaintiffs’ Motion to Leave to
Amend Complaint, Dkt. No. [100] at 8. However, this Court has already ruled that
allowing Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be futile because they could not
state a claim as a matter of law. Order, Dkt. No. 95 at 8. As Plaintiffs’ do not seek
to correct the substance of their complaint, the amendment would clearly be futile.
Thus, Plaintiffs Motion to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED.
Because Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration has been denied, the
following motions are also now MOOT: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [102],

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [103],1 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [116], and
1

It should also be noted that this Motion merely rehashes the Plaintiffs’ prior
Motion for Sanctions which was denied by this Court. See Order, Dkt. No. [95] at 810.
3
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [117].
C. Conclusion
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [97] and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint [100] are DENIED. The following motions are also
now MOOT based on the above denial: Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [102],
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [103], Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [116], and
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order [117].
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of , April 2011.

_______________________________
RICHARD W. STORY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4
AO 72A
(Rev.8/82)