Jean-Baptiste v. SAP, National Security Services, Inc. et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 7 Motion for Reconsideration and request to amend. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/10/2017. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 4/11/17)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SAP, NATIONAL SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., et al.
Civil Action No. PWG-17-95
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 15, 2017, I dismissed Plaintiff Henri Jean-Baptiste's
Defendants SAP, National Security Services, Inc. ("SAP") and Corporation Trust, Inc. for lack
of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Mem. Op. & Order, ECF Nos. 5 & 6. Plaintiff now
moves for reconsideration of that Order and also seeks leave to amend his Complaint.
7. I construe Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration as one filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Because Plaintiff does not present any valid grounds for reconsideration and I cannot grant leave
to amend without vacating the judgment, I will deny his motion in its entirety.
Plaintiff insists that "[t]he Memorandum Opinion'[s] alleged summary or interpretation
of Plaintiff['s] Complaint is somewhat incorrect" insofar as it relied on a letter from Vikki JeanBaptiste in which she made statements that, according to Plaintiff, she recanted under oath. PI.' s
Mot. ~~ 4-5.
He also argues that criminal cases against him were "dismissed and expunged,"
and one that was "on Appeal status" has been "changed ...
to closed status."
Id. ~ 6.
Additionally, Plaintiff contends that his prior case in this Court, Jean-Baptiste v. SAP, National
Security Services, No. PJM-15-187 (D. Md. 2015), was dismissed because he did not have
counsel. !d. ~ 6.
A motion to alter or amend judgment that "call [s] into question the correctness of that
order" and is filed within twenty-eight days of the judgment, such as Plaintiffs,
under Rule 59(e). See MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of So. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 277-80 (4th Cir.
2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
motion for reconsideration
"Courts have recognized three limited grounds for granting a
under Rule 59(e): (1) to accommodate an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not previously available; or (3) to correct clear
error of law or prevent manifest injustice."
Knott v. Wedgwood, No. DKC 13-2486, 2014 WL
4660811, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 11,2014) (citations omitted); see Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp.
LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 (4th Cir. 2010) (same); Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir.
2002) (holding that Rule 59(e) provides a district court with discretion to grant a motion to
amend a judgment "only in very narrow circumstances").
Plaintiff does not argue that the law has changed or that new evidence is available. Nor
does he assert convincingly that this Court's decision relies upon a clear error of law or that he is
entitled to the relief sought in order to prevent a manifest injustice.
Rather, he challenges the
bases for the Court's dismissal of his state law claims, while seeking leave to amend to state a
claim under federal law so that this Court would have jurisdiction over his action. Insofar as he
argues that the Court incorrectly
the facts regarding
statements or the status of the criminal cases against him, those facts were not relevant to the
grounds for dismissal. Nor were the grounds for dismissal of his claims in Jean-Baptiste v. SAP,
National Security Services, No. PJM-15-187, incorrectly stated. While the claims asserted by his
co-plaintiffs Express Services Co., Inc., Express Mortgoge [sic] & Co., and H.J.B. General
v. SAP, National
Security Services, No. PJM-15-187,
dismissed because they were not individuals and did not have counsel, and "[a]ll parties other
than individuals must be represented by counsel," Loc. R. 101.1(a), Plaintiff's
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Mem. Op., ECF NO.3 in PJM-15] 87.
In any event, Plaintiff has not shown that this Court has jurisdiction or that he stated a
claim under state law. Thus, there was no error of law or manifest injustice. Accordingly, I will
Motion for Reconsideration.
708; Knott v, 2014 WL 4660811,
See Robinson, 599 F.3d at 411; Hill, 277 F.3d at
And, because I am denying the Motion for
I also must deny Plaintiff s request to amend the complaint.
See Laber v.
Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir. 2006) ("There is one difference between a pre- and a postJudgment motion to amend: the district court may not grant the post-judgment motion unless the
judgment is vacated pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).").
1}(iintiff is proceeding
I note, however, that
in forma pauperis and that his Complaint was dismissed
prejudice, see Order, such that he may file a new civil action without incurring an additional
Accordingly, it is this
-&- day of April, 2017, by the United
States District Court for the
r Reconsideration and request
to amend, ECF No.7,
IS DENIED; and the Clerk
VIDE a copy of this Order to
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?