Sloane v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 26

Judge George A. OToole, Jr: ORDER entered denying 23 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration (Lyness, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-11355-GAO
JONATHAN G. SLOANE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

ORDER
May 24, 2013
O’TOOLE, D.J
The plaintiff brought this action seeking to void the foreclosure sale of his home by the
defendant. This court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss in March 2013. The plaintiff
has moved to alter the judgment (dkt. no. 23) in light of new caselaw. Defendant opposes this
motion.
Amendment or alteration of a judgment is “an extraordinary remedy which should be
used sparingly.” Palmer v. Champion Mortg. Corp., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (citations
omitted). Rule 59(e) is not a mechanism to rehash failed arguments or raise new one that “could,
and should, have been made before judgment was issued.” ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc.,
512 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.
1992)). Rather, to prevail, a party must prove either an error of law, a change in the controlling
law, or present newly discovered evidence. Soto-Padro v. Pub. Bldgs. Auth., 675 F.3d 1, 9 (1st
Cir. 2012). Here, the plaintiff contends that he is entitled to relief because there is additional
caselaw on point not briefed by either party or considered by the court on the motion to dismiss.

The plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 59(e). Most of the cited cases
were available before the judgment was entered in March 2013 and further, these rulings do not
persuade the court that M.G.L. ch. 244, § 35A is not expressly preempted by federal law.
The motion to alter is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
/s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr.
United States District Judge

2