Trust et al v. Davis et al
ORDER AND OPINION denying 20 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/19/2017.(sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT S~R:1r\Tu
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington
Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its
individual capacity, but solely as owner
trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust;
Bank of America, N.A.,
Cornell D. Davis; Juliett Marsh-Davis;
American Express Centurion Bank; and
Carriage Lane Homeowners Association,
1n11 \EP I 9 P 3' \ 3
Case No 2:l 7-cv-1502
ORDER AND OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Juliett Marsh-Davis's motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 20) of this Court's order (Dkt. No. 16) granting Plaintiffs motion to
remand and denying Defendant's motion to strike.
Defendant's motion for reconsideration is similar in substance to the objections she filed
to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 15.) For example, Defendant asserts
that she is "an American and not a Corporation" and that she is entitled to this Court's
determination of whether "a corporation/entity [may] bring a suit or charges against an American
National." (Dkt. No. 20 at 1.)
In the Fourth Circuit, motions to reconsider are granted under a narrow set of
circumstances: "(l) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for
new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice." Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Defendant's motion for
reconsideration does not meet this standard because it does not identify a change in the law, new
evidence, a clear error of law, or the risk of manifest injustice. For these reasons, Defendant's
motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 20) is denied.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court Judge
September I 1, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?