360 Mortgage Group, LLC v. Stonegate Mortgage Corporation et al

Filing 300

ORDER denying 289 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 12/6/2016. (Grady, B.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:14-CV-00310-F
360 MORTGAGE GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.

STONEGATE MORTGAGE CORP.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff 360 Mortgage Group, LLC's motion [DE-289]
seeking the court's reconsideration of its September 14,2016 Order [DE-276] allowing summary
judgment on all claims in favor of Defendant Stonegate Mortgage Corp.
Generally, motions for reconsideration are allowed only at the discretion ofthe court and
only under certain circumstances: (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. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). Motions
to reconsider "are improper if they serve merely to ask the Court 'to rethink what the Court had
already thought through-rightly or wrongly."' See Ga.-Pac. Consumer Prods. v. Von Drehle

Corp., 815 F. Supp. 2d 927, 929 (E.D.N.C. 2011) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan
Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Having reviewed the case and considered the parties' arguments, the court concludes that
there was no manifest error of law or fact in its September 14, 2016 Order, nor does Plaintiff
I

present newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law to justify reconsideration
of that decision. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion [DE-289] for reconsideration is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

This, the _t_ day of December, 2016.

enior United States District Judge

2