Neto v. Rushmore Loan Management Services, Inc. et al
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
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
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
cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1012
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.”
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
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.
Accordingly, it is this 22nd
day of June, 2017, by the
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 16)
BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
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?