Davis et al v. Oasis Legal Finance Operating Company, LLC et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 74 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 3/31/2020. (pts)

FILED

U.S. OiSTRlCT COURT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

AUSUSTA 0!V.

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
DUBLIN DIVISION

LIZZIE DAVIS; PAMELA DAVIS;

*

SURER; and SHIRLEY WILLIAMS,

Vt

•k

Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated,

CLERK.

*

DENNIS GREEN; JOHNNY MOODY; JOHN

20HAR3I PH3:i+6

k

SO.D!St.^F GA.

k

k
k

Plaintiffs,

k
k

V.

CV 317-022

k

OASIS LEGAL

k

FINANCE OPERATING

COMPANY, LLC; OASIS LEGAL

k

FINANCE, LLC; and OASIS LEGAL

k
k

FINANCE HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,

k
k

Defendants.

ORDER

Upon remand from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Court granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings

based upon an intervening case decided by the Georgia Supreme
Court

-

2018).

Ruth

V.

Cherokee

Funding,

LLC,

820

S.E.2d

704

(Ga.

The Ruth court held that financing agreements similar to

the ones at issue here did not involve "loans" because repayment
was

contingent

personal
Payday

injury

Lending

upon

successful

lawsuits.
Act

("PLA")

("GILA") did not apply.
the

Court determined

Id.
and

resolution

at

of

709-10.

Georgia

the

plaintiffs'

Thus,

Industrial

Georgia's
Loan

Act

In applying Ruth to the case at bar,

that Plaintiffs'

claims

under the

PLA

and

GILA are not cognizable.
72.)
the

(See Order of Jan. 24, 2020, Doc. No.

The Court additionally denied Plaintiffs' motion to amend
complaint

to

add

a

claim

that

the

financing

agreements

constitute illegal assignments of personal injury claims under
Georgia law.

At

(Id. at 7 n.3.)

present.

reconsideration.

Plaintiffs
A

motion

have

for

filed

a

motion

reconsideration

filed

for
within

thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment is considered under
Federal

Rule

granting a

of Civil Procedure

rule

59(e) motion

are

manifest error of law or fact."
1343 (ll^h cir. 2007).

vehicle

to

59(e).

"The

only

newly discovered

grounds for

evidence

or

Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335,

A Rule 59(e) motion is not intended as a

re-litigate

old

matters,

raise

new

arguments

or

present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry

of

judgment.

Michael

Linet,

Inc.

v.

Village

of

Wellington,

Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11^^ cir. 2005).

Here,

Plaintiffs

have

not

presented

any

new

evidence

or

advanced any new argument that has not already been considered
and rejected by this Court.

The Court's legal conclusions were

founded

controlling

upon

clear

and

Georgia

case

law.

Plaintiffs' reconsideration grounds do nothing to contravene or
undermine

these

presented

no

their case.

legal

conclusions.

reason to disturb

the

In

short.

Court's

Plaintiffs

decision

to

have

dismiss

Accordingly,

Plaintiffs'

motion for

reconsideration

(doc.

no. 74) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this c^'/^day of March,
2020.

UNITED STATES

DISTRICT