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

Filing 74

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 10/10/2019. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(brl) Modified signature date on 10/15/2019 (brl).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-00183-RJC
FELICIA ANN UNDERDUE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

THIS

MATTER

comes

before

the

ORDER

Court

on

Plaintiff’s Motion

for

Reconsideration. (Doc. No. 71.) The motion is ripe for adjudication.
I.

BACKGROUND
On March 12, 2018, this Court entered an order (1) granting Plaintiff an

extension of time to file a motion to amend with a proposed amended complaint, (2)
denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, and (3) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand to the EEOC. (Doc. No. 62.) On March 5, 2019—almost one year later—
Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision.
(Doc. No. 71.)
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically contain a ‘motion for

reconsideration.’

Such motions, however, are allowed in certain, limited

circumstances.” Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509
(W.D.N.C. 2003). “A motion to reconsider is appropriate when the court has obviously

misapprehended a party’s position or the facts or applicable law, or when the party
produces new evidence that could not have been obtained through the exercise of due
diligence.” Madison River Mgmt. Co. v. Bus. Mgmt. Software Corp., 402 F. Supp. 2d
617, 619 (M.D.N.C. 2005). “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)). “An improper use of
the motion to reconsider can waste judicial resources and obstruct the efficient
administration of justice.” United States v. Duke Energy Corp., 218 F.R.D. 468, 474
(M.D.N.C. 2003) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Fidelity State Bank v. Oles, 130
B.R. 578, 581 (D. Kan. 1991)).

Thus, “[i]t is improper to file a motion for

reconsideration simply to ask the Court to rethink what the Court had already
thought through – rightly or wrongly.” Wiseman, 215 F.R.D. at 509 (quotation marks
omitted).
III.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff fails to show why reconsideration is appropriate. Plaintiff has neither

presented newly discovered evidence nor shown that the Court obviously
misapprehended the facts or applicable law. A motion to reconsider “is not to present
a better and more compelling argument that the party could have presented in the
original briefs.” Madison, 402 F. Supp. 2d at 619. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration,

2

(Doc. No. 71), is DENIED.

Signed: October 10, 2019

3