Neto v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, Inc. et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Reconsideration (c/m to Plaintiff 6/22/17 sat). Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 6/22/2017. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
JOAQUIM NETO
:
v.

:

Civil Action No. DKC 16-1056

:
RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., et al.

:

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After this court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss on
March 7, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on
March 20, 2017.

(ECF No. 16).

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

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 Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148
F.3d 396, 403 (4th

Cir. 1998)),

cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012

(2003).
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
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).
Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the standard of Rule
59,

but

merely

rejected.

Nor

reiterates
is

the

arguments

case

cited,

previously
Hejazi

v.

made
Oliveri

and
&

Associates, LLC, 2015 WL 3447660 (D.Md. May 27, 2015), of any
help to Plaintiff.

The underlying proceedings and the claims

before this court presented different circumstances than those
in that case.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

will be denied.

2

Accordingly, it is this 22nd
United

States

District

Court

day of June, 2017, by the

for

the

District

of

Maryland,

ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16)

BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
2.

The

Memorandum

Clerk

Opinion

IS
and

DIRECTED
Order

to

to

transmit

Plaintiff

a
and

copy

of

counsel

this
for

Defendants.

/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

3