Betch et al v. O'Brien et al

Filing 34

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying 31 MOTION for Reconsideration; directing the clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 9/15/2022. (c/m 9/15/2022 - dg3s, Deputy Clerk)

Case 8:22-cv-00894-PX Document 34 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IRVIN J. BETCH, et al.,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

ATTORNEY MAURICE W. O’BRIEN, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 8:22-cv-00894-PX

*

***
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Presently pending is Plaintiffs Irving and Patricia Betch’s motion for reconsideration of
this Court’s order dismissing the Complaint. ECF No. 31. 1 Pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, reconsideration is available “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Pacific Ins. Co. v. American
Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). “Rule 59(e) motions may not be used,
however, to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment .
. . .” Id.
Plaintiffs have provided no grounds for the Court to reconsider its prior decision. First,
the Court did not clearly err in concluding that the state foreclosure action, litigated to final
judgment, barred re-litigation of the same claims in this Court. See Proctor v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 289 F. Supp. 3d 676, 682-85 (D. Md. 2018). Nor did the Court misapply the RookerFeldman doctrine, as Plaintiffs contend. ECF No. 31 at 1. Rather, because the claims were
barred by res judicata, the Court declined to reach whether Rooker-Feldman also barred the

The motion is styled as one “for reconsideration of the dismissal . . . and notice of appeal.” ECF No. 31.
To the extent Plaintiffs wish to appeal, they must follow Fed. R. App. P. 3 & 4.
1

Case 8:22-cv-00894-PX Document 34 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 2

claims. See ECF No. 29 at 8 n.5. Thus, Plaintiffs have advanced no grounds for reconsideration
of the prior decision.
Accordingly, it is this 15th day of September 2022, by the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, hereby ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 31) IS DENIED; and

2.

The Clerk SHALL MAIL a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the
parties and CLOSE this case.

September 15, 2022
Date

/s/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

2