Stancik, Jr. v. Deutsche Bank et al

Filing 25

Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 2/26/18 denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration for the reasons set forth in this order. (Related Doc. 21 ) (D,MA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
MARTIN S. STANCIK, JR.,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
:
:
DEUTSCHE BANK, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01809

OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. No. 21]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration1, asking the Court to revisit the
Memorandum of Opinion and Order2 granting the Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(c),3 and Motion to Dismiss under Federal
Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6).4 The Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s Motion.5
A Motion for Reconsideration is construed as a Federal Civil Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter
or Amend Judgment.6 Federal Civil Procedure Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a Motion to
Alter or Amend its Judgment when one of the following circumstances arises: (1) there is an

1

Doc. No. 21

2

Doc. No. 19

3

Doc. No. 11

4

Doc. No. 8

5

Doc. Nos. 22, 23

6

Moody v. Pepsi-Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 915 F.2d 201, 206 (6th Cir. 1990).

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) evidence not previously available became
available; or (3) it is necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.7
Rule 59(e) Motions are “entrusted to the Court’s sound discretion.”8 They are not intended as
an opportunity to relitigate previously considered issues, or to attempt to persuade the Court to
reverse the judgment by offering the same arguments previously presented.9
In support of his Motion, Plaintiff states three grounds for relief. First, he states his loss
of “millions of dollars in income over 10 years due to the false statements of Deustche Bank is
not a frivolous matter and should be taken seriously by this Court.”10 Second, he states the
actions of this Court and other Courts denying him relief demonstrate they are biased against
him.11 Third, he alleges Deutsche Bank admitted to the Justice Department in 2017 that they
filed false documents in many cases and yet the Court failed to consider this when granting
judgment in favor of the Defendants.12 Although not stated as a separate ground for relief,

7

GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999).

8

Constr. Helicopters, Inc. v. Heli-Dyne Sys., Inc., Nos. 88-1166, 88-1192, 1989 WL 54111,
at *4 (6th Cir. May 23, 1989); Keweenaw Bay Indian Community v. United States, 940 F.Supp.
1139, 1140 (W.D. Mich.1996) (citing Huff v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122 (6th
Cir.1982)).
9

Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement v. Cont'l Biomass Indus., Inc., 86 F. Supp.
2d 721, 726 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (emphasis and citation omitted); see also Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998) (noting that a Rule 59(e) motion “is
not an opportunity to re-argue a case” nor an avenue to raise arguments that “could have, but [were]
not” raised before); Beltowski v. Bradshaw, No. 1:08 CV 2651, 2009 WL 5205368, at *4 (N.D.
Ohio Dec. 23, 2009) (“The motion for reconsideration should not provide the parties with an
opportunity for a second bite at the apple.”).
10

Doc. 21 at 2

11

Doc. 21 at 2

12

Doc. 21 at 2
-2-

Plaintiff also suggests this Court’s opinion is in conflict with an unidentified New York
Supreme Court case.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff challenged a state court foreclosure judgment. The Court
dismissed this action on the grounds of res judicata, expiration of statute of limitations, and
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In his Motion, Plaintiff continues to
assert he was treated unfairly by the Deutsche Bank, and expresses frustration that he has been
unable to obtain relief from the courts. He, however, has not suggested any particular clear
error of law in the Court’s analysis, any intervening change in controlling law, or any newly
discovered evidence. Plaintiff has not demonstrated he is entitled to relief under Rule 59(e).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration13 is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2018

13

s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Doc. No. 21
-3-