Leffler v. Miller and Steeno, P.C. et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. [Doc. 63 ] Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III on May 6, 2014. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MEGAN LEFFLER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MILLER AND STEENO, P.C., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13cv1764 TCM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Megan Leffler (Plaintiff) moves this Court for reconsideration of its order denying her
motion for partial summary judgment on the question whether a July 3, 2013 letter from Miller
and Steeno, P.C., violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(1) by not informing her that interest was
accruing on the debt at issue.
Plaintiff bases her motion on the contents of July 15, 2013, telephone call. Although
the recording of that call was submitted in support of her motion, Plaintiff's only reference in
her Statement of Uncontroverted Facts to the contents of the call was that she was then
informed for the first time that interest was accruing on her account. In her motion for
reconsideration, she argues that the Court's assumptions in its summary judgment ruling were
incorrect based on additional revelations made during the telephone conversation.
Acknowledging the limited description of the call in her motion for summary judgment, she
attempts to "remed[y] her earlier oversight through the detailed description of the call
provided" in the reconsideration motion. (Pl.'s Mot. at 4.) She also notes that the Court was
provided a copy of the recording as an exhibit in support of her motion for partial summary
judgment. (Id.)

The Court was not obligated to listen to the recording in search of evidence to support
Plaintiff's claim. See Brown v. City of Jacksonville, 711 F.3d 883, 888 n.5 (8th Cir. 2013);
Holland v. Sam's Club, 487 F.3d 641, 644 (8th Cir. 2007); Rodgers v. City of Des Moines,
435 F.3d 904, 908 (8th Cir. 2006).
Nor will the Court reconsider its earlier ruling based on a detailed description not made
in support of the seminal motion because of an unexplained oversight. See Minn. Supply Co.
v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 533-34 (8th Cir. 2006) (analyzing motion for
reconsideration of ruling on partial summary judgment as Rule 60(b)(2) motion1 and affirming
the denial of such when there is no new evidence). See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) (setting forth
reasons for granting motion for relief from order).
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

[Doc. 63]

/s/ Thomas C. Mummert, III
THOMAS C. MUMMERT, III
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated this 6th day of May, 2014.

1

See Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that "[t]he Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention motions for reconsideration" and determining that such
motions "are nothing more than Rule 60(b) motions when directed at non-final orders") (internal
citations omitted). Cf. Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000) (holding that
motion to reconsider final order is construed as Rule 59(e) motion).

-2-