Perlmutter et al v. Varone et al

Filing 45

MEMORANDUM and ORDER denying 35 MOTION for Reconsideration (Motion for Relief from Judgment); granting 39 MOTION to Strike Appearance of Counsel; denying 42 MOTION for Reconsideration; denying 43 Renewed Request for Sanctions and Pre-filing Order against Plaintiffs; denying 44 Renewed Request for Sanctions and Pre-filing Order against Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 10/13/2020. (c/m 10/13/2020 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)

Case 8:19-cv-03402-PX Document 45 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
DAWN PERLMUTTER, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*

Civil Action No. 8:19-cv-03402-PX

TRINA VARONE, et. al.,

*

Defendants.

*
***
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

On June 1, 2020, the Court issued its memorandum opinion and order granting
Defendants’ motions to dismiss Dawn Perlmutter and Tom Bolick’s pro se Amended Complaint
and denying Defendants’ motions for sanctions. ECF No. 33. On June 22, 2020, Plaintiffs
moved for reconsideration (ECF No. 35), prompting counsel of record for defendant Scott
Perlmutter to move this Court to strike his appearance. ECF No. 39. Plaintiffs also seek to
“Recuse/Disqualify Judge Paula Xinis.” ECF No. 42. Defendants, in response, renew their
sanctions motion. ECF Nos. 43 & 44. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the
motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 39), and DENIES all other motions. ECF Nos. 35, 42,
43, 44.
The pertinent facts, accepted as true and most favorably to Plaintiffs, were fully set out in
the Court’s prior opinion and are incorporated here. ECF No. 32. However, like the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiffs’ pending motions are rambling, largely indecipherable, and, in the end,
frivolous. ECF Nos. 35 & 42. Indeed, the only new “fact” is that, according to Plaintiffs, this
Court is now part of the long list of “co-conspirators” intent on depriving them of their rightful
share of the family inheritance. ECF No. 42.

Case 8:19-cv-03402-PX Document 45 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 3

Because Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration within 28 days of this Court’s order,
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) applies. See Katyle v. Penn. Nat. Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d
462, 471 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011). Rule 59(e) provides three limited grounds for reconsideration: (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. 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). As with all pro se pleadings, a reconsideration motion filed by
self-represented litigates must be liberally construed. United States v. Groves, No. 98-6635,
1999 WL 515445, at *4 (4th Cir. July 21, 1999). That said, the purpose of such a motion is not
“reargue the merits” of its case or “present new evidence” that could have otherwise been
presented in the first instance. Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Miles & Stockbridge, P.C., 142 F. Supp.
2d 676, 677 n.1 (D. Md. 2001); see also Lowery v. Fearing, No. PX-16-3164, 2018 WL
1505791, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2018) (quoting Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th
Cir. 1993)).
Plaintiffs contend broadly that this Court “denied them due process of law… [by]
purposefully, intentionally, and knowingly join[ing] the coordinated effort to deprive the
plaintiffs of right secured by the U.S. Constitution.” ECF No. 35 at 2. Otherwise, Plaintiffs
simply copy-and-paste the same verbiage from their prior filings which restate the same
conspiratorial allegations. ECF No. 42. Plaintiffs have put forward no serious reason for this
Court to revisit its prior ruling or to recuse itself from this litigation. See Pacific Ins. Co., 148
F.3d at 403 (quoting Wright, et al., supra, § 2810.1, at 124). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motions
are denied. ECF Nos. 35 & 42.

2

Case 8:19-cv-03402-PX Document 45 Filed 10/13/20 Page 3 of 3

As for Defendants’ sanctions request, the Court has dispensed with Plaintiffs’ arguments
quickly and without further serious expenditure of resources. This matter is best ended now, and
so sanctions will not issue. However, any further motions akin to reconsideration or recusal
based on nothing new will be summarily denied without the need for Defendants to respond.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and recusal are hereby DENIED
(ECF Nos. 35 & 42); Defendant’s renewed motions at ECF Nos. 43 & 44 are DENIED; and
counsel’s motion at ECF No. 39 is GRANTED.
So ordered.
__10/13/2020____________
Date

_________/S/__________________
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

3