GLOVER v. WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. et al

Filing 744

ORDER denying 739 Motion to Vacate; denying 740 Motion. Signed by Judge Donetta W. Ambrose on 12/10/14. (slh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARY

GLOVER,
Plaintiff,

v.
MARK 1. UDREN, UDREN LAW
OFFICES, P.C., WELLS FARGO
HOME MORTGAGE, GOLDMAN
SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY
Defendants.

)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 08-990
District Judge Donetta W. Ambrosel
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell

MEMORANDUM ORDER
DONETTA W. AMBROSE, United States Senior District Judge.
On November 25, 2014, this Court entered a Memorandum Order adopting the Report
and Recommendation of the magistrate judge and entered judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 58 in favor of Defendant Wells Fargo and against Plaintiff, Mary E. Glover. See
Memo. Order [ECF No. 737]; Judgment [ECF No. 738]. On December 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
motion to vacate the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation and Motion to
Amend/Correct the record pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2). See Motion to
Vacate [ECF No. 739]; Motion to AmendlCorrect Record [ECF No. 740]. Defendant Wells
Fargo filed its response to Plaintiff's motions on December 8, 2014. See Def.'s Resp. [ECF No.
743].

Pursuant to the Order entered December 8, 2014, this Court will construe Plaintiff's

motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) as a Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment. See 12/812014 Order [ECF No. 742].
The party moving to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59 faces a difficult burden, as
she must show that reconsideration is based on one of the following grounds: "(1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available when the

court granted the motion for summary judgment; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharm., L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 848
(3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Max's Seafood Cafe v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669,677 (3d Cir. 1999)).
Here, because Plaintiff argues that the magistrate judge made errors of fact throughout this case,
the Court will view the motion under the third prong.

The purpose of a motion for

reconsideration is to "correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe, 176 F.3d at 677. Of most importance here, a party attempting to
set aside a judgment or moving for reconsideration under Rule 59 may not "relitigate issues
already resolved by the court," American Beverage Corp. v. Diageo, N.A., Inc., 2013 WL
4010825, at *1 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 6, 20l3), nor may use Rule 59 "as a means to argue new facts or
issues that inexcusably were not presented to the court in the matter previously decided."

Kaufman v. Allemang, --- F.Supp.3d ---, ---, 2014 WL 4954333, at *10 (D.Del. Sept. 30, 2014);
Glendon Energy Co. v. Borough ofGlendon, 836 F.Supp. 1109, 1122 (E.D.Pa. 1993).
Here, Plaintiff requests that the Court temporarily vacate the Judgment entered on
November 25, 2014 and correct certain factual inaccuracies in the record. See Motion to Vacate
[ECF No. 739]; Motion to Amend/Correct the Record [ECF No. 740]. The factual inaccuracies
cited by Plaintiff in her motion involve the magistrate's interpretation of case management over
this case's tortuous procedural history.l

It is unclear how any of Plaintiff's alleged factual

As set forth in the headnotes of Plaintiff's motion, her factual inaccuracies include: "Ms.
Glover did not have four years to four months to conduct discovery; discovery was open for only
a small fraction of that time[;] ... Ms. Glover vigorously pursued discovery during the period in
which discovery was authorized by the magistrate judge[;] ... The magistrate's special master
referral was engendered by frustration with the parties not only with Ms. Glover[;] ... [and] Ms.
Glover did not categorically refuse to proceed before the special master[.]" See Mot. to Correct
the Record [ECF No. 740] at 1,3,4, 7.
2

inaccuracies, or facts surrounding the management of this case in general, equate to material
factual errors requiring that the judgment be altered or vacated. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions
are denied.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this

Itt"'day

of December, 2014, upon consideration of

Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate the Order on Report and Recommendations, Order on Motion to
Strike and Rule 58 Judgment [ECF No. 739] and Plaintiff s Motion to Amend/Correct the
Record [ECF No. 740] and treated as motions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
that Plaintiffs Motions are DENIED.

~$~

The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge

cc:

All attorneys of record via CM-ECF

3