Smith v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Michael P. Mills on 2/22/16. (jtm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE
ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter comes before the court on the motion by Fred Smith for the court to reconsider its
order granting Wells Fargo’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) . The plaintiff styles the
motion as one seeking relief from a judgment or order under FED. R. CIV. P. 60. An order granting relief
under Rule 60 must be based upon: (1) clerical mistakes, (2) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect, (3) newly discovered evidence, (4) fraud or other misconduct of an adverse party, (5)
a void judgment, or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order.
In 2012, Plaintiff Fred Smith filed an action relating to the same foreclosure proceedings on the
same property at issue here, and asserted a number of claims. Smith v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL
4320845 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2012). This court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo by
finding that Smith conceded the central factual issues of the case and asserted a number of utterly
frivolous claims. Id. However, Smith and his wife then filed another action relating to the same
foreclosure proceedings on the same property, which the court dismissed due to the res judicata and/or
collateral estoppel effect of prior litigation of those claims. Smith v. Jedynak, No. 3:14-cv-00059-MPMJMV (N.D. Miss. Jan. 28, 2015).
The present motion for reconsideration  is only the most recent of the plaintiff’s many
requests seeking relief on this matter. In the most recent petition filed, the plaintiff claims Wells Fargo
violated a number of state and federal laws in connection with the foreclosure of his home. Smith asked
the court for declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order regarding the property and
foreclosure proceedings. The court dismissed the compliant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, specifically asserting his claims are barred by the res
judicata and/or collateral estoppel effect.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration under the mistaken theory that the order granting the complaint’s
dismissal  is contrary to the record and contrary to Rule 60. In any event, the instant motion  is
largely a recapitulation of the petitioner’s previous requests for post-judgment relief. As such, for the
reasons set forth in the court’s previous decisions, the court holds that the instant motion  should be
dismissed for want of substantive merit. Mr. Smith has neither asserted nor proven any of the specific
justifications for relief from an order permitted under Rule 60. In addition, the plaintiff has not
presented any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the order . As such, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration  is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this, the 22nd day of February, 2016.
/s/ MICHAEL P. MILLS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
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?