GRAY v. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY et al

Filing 69

ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - The motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal 67 is denied because final judgment has been entered on the clerk's docket. Gray's motion for ruling on motion 68 is denied as moot. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/6/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

DWAYNE E. GRAY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1575-JMS-DKL

Entry Discussing Selected Matters
I.
A.
Dwayne Gray alleged that the defendants “used predatory lending practices,
illegal entry and property damage, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, illegal
affidavit of default, robo-signing, slander of title, bad faith and all against federal
guidelines.” The action was dismissed on June 6, 2012. Federal claims were
dismissed with prejudice, pendent state law claims against Safeguard Properties,
LLC were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining pendent claims under state
law were dismissed without prejudice.
The entry of final judgment was followed by Gray’s filing of June 27, 2012,
wherein he seeks a rehearing and certification for an interlocutory appeal. This
filing was made within 28 days from the entry of judgment on the clerk’s docket.

Given the timing of the motion for rehearing relative to the entry of final
judgment, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the motion is treated
as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir.
2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within 10 days of the entry of
judgment should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label
affixed to it); Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)(noting that
Rule 59(e) encompasses reconsideration of matters decided on the merits).
The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to
have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the
merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e)
"authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either a manifest error
of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v. International
Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v.
Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).
There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not
misapprehend Gray’s claims or the related litigation, nor did it misapply the law to
his claims. Accordingly, the post-judgment motion for rehearing, treated as a motion
to alter or amend judgment [67], is denied.
B.
The motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal [67] is denied because
final judgment has been entered on the clerk’s docket.
II.
Gray’s motion for ruling on motion [68] is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
09/06/2012
Date: __________________
Distribution:
Dwayne E. Gray
5567 West 43rd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46254
All Electronically Registered Counsel

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana