Jefferson v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 25 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 12/23/2015. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
CAROL JEFFERSON
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-2275

:
NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION d/b/a Amtrak

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Presently pending and ready for resolution is a motion for
reconsideration filed by Plaintiff Carol Jefferson.
25).

(ECF No.

The relevant issues have been briefed, and the court now

rules, no hearing is deemed necessary.

Local Rule 105.6.

For

the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
I.

Background
The background to this case may be found in the memorandum

opinion issued on October 21, 2015.

(ECF No. 23).

That opinion

and an accompanying order granted Defendant Amtrak’s motion to
dismiss

for

insufficient

process.

On

November

4,

Plaintiff

filed the pending motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 25), and
Defendant responded in opposition (ECF No. 26).
II.

Standard of Review
A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the

underlying order is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).1

1

Courts have

A party may move to alter or amend a judgment under Rule
59(e), or for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b).

recognized

three

limited

grounds

for

granting

a

motion

for

reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.

See United States ex rel.

Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th
Cir. 2002) (citing Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998)).

A motion for reconsideration is

properly denied when a movant fails to establish one of these
three criteria.

See, e.g., Jarvis v. Enter. Fleet Servs. &

Leasing Co., No. DKC-07-3385, 2010 WL 1929845, at *2 (D.Md. May
11, 2010), aff’d, 408 F.App’x 668 (4th Cir. 2011) (denying motion
to reconsider because the plaintiff failed to identify valid
circumstances that would cause the district court to alter or
amend its prior opinion).
A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old
matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.”
Co.,

148

F.3d

at

403

(quoting

11

Wright,

et

Pac. Ins.

al.,

Federal

Practice & Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995)); see
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) & 60(b).
A motion to alter or amend
filed within 28 days of the judgment is analyzed under Rule
59(e). See MLC Auto, LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 280
Cir.
2008);
Classen
Immunotherapies,
Inc.
v.
King
(4th
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. WDQ–04–3621, 2013 WL 5934055, at *3
(D.Md. Oct. 31, 2013).
2

also Medlock v. Rumsfeld, 336 F.Supp.2d 452, 470 (D.Md. 2002),
aff’d, 86 F.App’x 665 (4th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (“To the
extent that Plaintiff is simply trying to reargue the case, he
is not permitted to do so.

Where a motion does not raise new

arguments, but merely urges the court to ‘change its mind,’
relief is not authorized.”).

“In general, ‘reconsideration of a

judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should
be used sparingly.’”

Pac. Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403 (quoting

Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
III. Analysis
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not satisfy any
of

the

three

Plaintiff
newly

has

grounds
not

developed

for

reconsideration

identified

evidence,

any

clear

under

intervening
error

of

Rule

change

law,

or

59(e).
in

law,

manifest

injustice to warrant an alteration of the prior judgment.

The

brief arguments Plaintiff makes in support of her motion are
unpersuasive.
First, Plaintiff argues that Maryland Rule 2-507 does not
apply.2

Maryland Rule 2-507(b) provides that:
[A]n action against any defendant who has
not been served or over whom the court has
not
otherwise
acquired
jurisdiction
is
subject to dismissal as to that defendant at

2

Although Plaintiff does not base her arguments for
reconsideration on the grounds in Rule 59(e), the undersigned
construes this argument as alleging a clear error in law.
3

the expiration of 120 days from the issuance
of
original
process
directed
to
that
defendant.
Plaintiff
Circuit

argues
Court

that

of

this

Maryland

rule

does

for

Prince

not

apply

because

the

George’s

County

had

“otherwise acquired jurisdiction” over Defendant when counsel
for Defendant entered his appearance.

(ECF No. 25, at 1-2).

Defendant contends that Rule 2-507 still applies because the
appearance was entered “for the limited and sole purpose of”
filing the motion to dismiss for insufficient process.
26-1).
argument

(ECF No.

Plaintiff does not cite any case law to support her
that

such

an

appearance

precludes

Rule

2-507

from

applying, and such a proposition is contrary to the relevant
precedent.

(See ECF No. 23, at 3-5 (citing cases that granted

similar motions to dismiss under Rule 2-507)).

Accordingly,

Plaintiff has not shown the existence of a clear error of law.
Plaintiff also puts forth two arguments that have already
been litigated: that her delay in serving process was justified
because she encountered “unexpected difficulty in searching for
a seasoned Maryland counsel who was then available and would
vigorously handle defendant’s potential responses to service,”
and that Amtrak was not prejudiced by the delay.
at 2-3).

(ECF No. 25,

A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old

matters, which is precisely what Plaintiff attempts to do here.
4

Plaintiff

had

an

justifying

the

considered

the

opportunity

delay

in

arguments

to,

and

service
and

of

found

did,

advance

process.

that

demonstrated a justification for the delay.”

arguments
The

“Plaintiff

court

has

not

(ECF No. 23 at 5).

The court also considered the issue of prejudice and found that
such a significant delay in service prejudiced Defendant.
at

5-6).

Plaintiff’s

arguments

on

these

two

issues

satisfy the exacting requirements of Rule 59(e).

do

(Id.
not

Accordingly,

there is no reason to disturb the memorandum opinion and order.
IV.

Conclusion
For

the

foregoing

reasons,

reconsideration will be denied.

Plaintiff’s

motion

for

Thus, it is this 23rd day of

December, 2015, by the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff Carol Jefferson’s motion for reconsideration

(ECF No. 25) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
3.

The

clerk

will

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum

Opinion and Order to counsel for the parties.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

5