Milligan v. Ally Financial

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 23 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 6/24/16 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/24/2016. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
GERARD AVERY MILLIGAN
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 15-3486

:
ALLY FINANCIAL
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On May 20, 2016, the court issued a memorandum opinion and
order

granting

the

motion

for

summary

judgment

filed

by

Defendant Ally Financial (“Defendant”), denying the cross-motion
for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff Gerard Avery Milligan
(“Plaintiff”),

entering

judgment

in

favor

of

Defendant

and

against Plaintiff on all counts in Plaintiff’s complaint, and
closing this action.

(ECF Nos. 19; 20).

On June 17, Plaintiff

filed the pending motion for reconsideration.

(ECF No. 23).

A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days of the
underlying order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e).

Courts

have

recognized

three

limited

grounds

for

granting a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 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 Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th
(2003).

Cir. 1998)),

cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012

A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to re-litigate 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

Pacific Ins.
al.,

Federal

Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995)).

“In

general, ‘reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary

remedy

which

should

be

used

sparingly.’”

Id.

(quoting Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124).
Here, Plaintiff has not addressed any of the grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e), nor does any appear to be
applicable.
there

Plaintiff’s motion merely recites his belief that

is

no

contract

continues

to

assert

between
that

himself

the

and

Dealership’s

Defendant was invalid or fraudulent.

Defendant.
assignment

He
to

Plaintiff may not rehash

the same arguments considered and rejected by the court in the
prior

opinion.

“Plaintiff’s

reiteration

of

prior

arguments

reveals a ‘mere disagreement’ with the court’s decision and thus
is

an

insufficient

basis

for

[the]

reconsideration under Rule 59(e).

extraordinary

remedy”

of

Panowicz v. Hancock, No. DKC-

11-2417, 2015 WL 5895528, at *3 (D.Md. Oct. 5, 2015) (citing

2

Hutchinson

v.

Staton,

994

F.2d

1076,

1082

(4th

Cir.

1993)).

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must be denied.
Accordingly, it is this 24th
United

States

District

Court

day of June, 2016, by the

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

The motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiff (ECF

No. 23) BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.
Memorandum

The

clerk

Opinion

is
and

directed
Order

to

transmit

directly

to

a

copy

Plaintiff

of

and

counsel for Defendant.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3

this
to