Haffey et al v. Gentry Mechanical Systems, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: DENYING Haffey's 33 MOTION to Alter or Amend the 32 Judgment on the Pleadings by Shane M. Haffey(as a Relator Qui Tam )Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 10/3/12.(KJR)cc: COR,Haffey
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LEAD CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-459-JBC
CONSOLIDATED CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-188-JBC
GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC,
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
HEATHER BOONE MCKEEVER, et al.,
Pending before the court is the plaintiff Shane Haffey’s motion to alter or
amend the judgment on the pleadings, R.33. For the following reasons, the court
will deny the motion.
On March 2, 2012, the court granted Deutsche Bank’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings and dismissed this action, finding that the law-of-the-case doctrine
barred all of Haffey’s claims against Deutsche Bank. Haffey now moves the court
to alter that order and asks the court to reconsider its order denying Haffey’s
motion to remand. The court reviews both a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter
or amend a judgment and a motion to reconsider for a showing of “(1) a clear error
of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law;
or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.” Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol.
Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 496 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Smith v. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60,
62 (6th Cir. 1979). Haffey has made none of these showings.
Haffey offers no clear explanation as to why the court’s reliance on the lawof-the-case doctrine was incorrect. Haffey’s motion to reconsider asks the court to
re-examine the jurisdictional question of whether Gentry Mechanical, a former
defendant in this action, was fraudulently joined. In support of reconsideration,
Haffey argues that Gentry has an active case in Fayette County Circuit Court to
enforce a still-active lien on the property in dispute and provides certified copies of
Gentry’s active mechanic’s lien and active lis pendens as exhibits. However, he
offers no legal argument as to how these documents alter the court’s analysis in its
order denying remand or why the documents were not provided with his motion to
The court denied remand after finding that Gentry should not be considered
in the diversity jurisdiction analysis because Haffey asserted “only a brief allegation
against Gentry and state[d] no legal basis for the claim,” which meant that “[n]o
colorable basis exist[ed] for predicting that Haffey could recover against Gentry.”
R.126, p.2; see Jerome-Duncan, Inc. v. Auto-By-Tel, L.L.C., 176 F.3d 904, 907
(6th Cir. 1994). Haffey stated in his complaint that Gentry was named as a party
because a mechanic’s lien existed on the property in dispute, but he also noted that
the lien was statutorily dissolved. Now, Haffey attaches copies of the lien and lis
pendens as proof that he does have an active claim against Gentry; however, these
documents, dated July 31, 2007, and July 30, 2008, existed at the time Haffey
filed his complaint and motion to remand, and they do not constitute new
evidence. The court thus finds no basis by which to alter, amend, or reconsider its
order granting Deutsche Bank’s motion for judgment on the pleadings or its order
denying Haffey’s motion to remand. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Haffey’s motion to alter or amend the judgment on the
pleadings, R.33, is DENIED.
Signed on October 3, 2012
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?