Underdue v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/27/2014. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(jlk)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION 3:14-cv-183-RJC FELICIA ANN UNDERDUE, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and PATEL, KENDRA BROWN, SUSAN LYBRAND, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, captioned “Opposition to the order Granting Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Having Failed to Plead Sufficient Factual Content to Support the Complaint.” (Doc. No. 18). I. BACKGROUND On August 13, 2014, this Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and dismissing the case with prejudice. (Doc. 16). Subsequent to that Order, on August 18, 2014, Plaintiff brought this Motion requesting the Court to reconsider its decision. (Doc. 18). II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically address motions for reconsideration, they come “in the nature of a motion to alter or amend the prior judgment of the Court under Rule 59(e),” Christian v. Moore, No. 3:13-cv-100-FDW-DSC, 2013 WL 937764, at *1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 11, 2013), and “are allowed in certain, limited circumstances,” Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509 (W.D.N.C. 2003). The purpose of a motion to reconsider is to present the Court with newly discovered evidence or to correct manifest errors of law in a prior order. DirecTV, Inc. v. Hart, 366 F. Supp. 2d 315, 317 (E.D.N.C. 2004) (quoting Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985)). “Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare.” Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). III. DISCUSSION Upon review of the Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds that the Defendant has not stated good cause for reconsideration of the Court’s Order. Here, Plaintiff fails to adequately present newly discovered evidence or correct manifest errors of law in this Court’s prior Order. A motion to reconsider cannot “merely ask[] the court ‘to rethink what the Court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” DirecTV, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d at 317 (quoting Harsco, 779 F.2d at 909). Nor is it proper for the Court to entertain new, unrelated arguments, presented for the first time. Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Signed: October 27, 2014 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.18), is DENIED.

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?