Aalaam v. Movement Mortgage, LLC

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 17 Motion for Reconsideration re 15 Order, 16 Clerk's Judgment. The Clerk is directed to maintain this matter as closed in accordance with this Order. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 8/29/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mek)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-CV-00127-KDB-DCK
ANWAR A. AALAAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No.
17). Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's final dismissal of this action under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Those rules permits a court to “alter or amend” or correct
orders and provide relief from judgment under the following circumstances:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

1

Rule 60(b) is an “extraordinary remedy” which sets aside “the sanctity of [a] final
judgment.” Compton v. Alton Steamship Co., Inc., 608 F.2d 96, 102 (4th Cir. 1979) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). The Court finds that none of the circumstances reflected in Rule
60(b)(1)-(5) apply here. Further, relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) should be granted only
upon a showing that relief is “appropriate to accomplish justice” in “situations involving
extraordinary circumstances.” Dowell v. State Farm Fire Cas. Auto. Ins. Co., 993 F.2d 46, 48 (4th
Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court concludes that reversal of
the Court's dismissal order is neither necessary to “accomplish justice” nor does this case involve
“extraordinary circumstances” (beyond the frivolous nature of Plaintiff’s claims as described in
the Court’s earlier order). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion will be denied.
ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk is directed to maintain this matter as closed in accordance with this
Order.

SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: August 29, 2024

2