Madej et al v. Bank of America et al
Filing
38
ORDER that Plaintiff's 35 Motion for Reconsideration, construed as a motion for relief from final judgment, is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT T. MADEJ, and
DIANE Y. MADEJ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., RECONTRUST
COMPANY, N.A., and DOES 1-10
(INCLUSIVE),
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 8:12CV88
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Filing
No. 35). The Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate the Memorandum and Order of March 12,
2013 (Filing No. 33), and Judgment (Filing No. 34), that granted the Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment and resulted in a final judgment in favor of the Defendants.
Plaintiffs’ counsel states that he did not receive the Defendants’ motion (Filing No. 30),
brief (Filing No. 32), or index of evidence (Filing No. 31), because the documents went to
his electronic junk mail file. He further asks that the Court grant him an extension of time
to respond to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, as if that Motion had been
filed on the date the Court enters its Order on the Plaintif fs’ Motion for Reconsideration.
The record demonstrates that Plaintiffs’ counsel was fully aware the Defendants
would be filing a motion for summary judgment.
(See Plaintiffs’ counsel’s letter to
Magistrate Judge Gossett, dated October 16, 2012, at Filing Nos. 25 and 26.) Plaintiffs’
counsel was also fully aware that the deadline for filing of such motions was January 30,
2013. (See Order Setting Final Schedule for Progression of Case, Filing No. 28.) The
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, along with their brief and index of evidence,
were filed on that day. (Filing Nos. 30, 31, 32.) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to respond to
the Motion was not excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), and the Motion for
Reconsideration, construed as a motion for relief from final judgment, is denied.
IT IS ORDERED:
The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Filing No. 35), construed as a motion
for relief from final judgment, is denied.
DATED this 16th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
2
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?