Gamble v. Bank of America NA

Filing 19

ORDER granting 13 Motion to Amend Notice of Removal and Incorporated Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof; granting 14 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's July 15, 2014 Order of Remand, and notifying counsel the action will be scheduled for trial during the court's November/December 2014 term of court. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/21/2014.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Alvin Gamble,

C/A No. 3:14-cv-02767-JFA
Plaintiff,

vs.
Bank of America, N.A.,

ORDER

Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to amend its notice of removal and
Defendant’s separate motion for reconsideration. First, the Defendant has moved to amend its
notice of removal so that it may include an email from Plaintiff to Defendant, where Plaintiff
acknowledges that he seeks an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. (ECF No. 13-8, p.
15). The Defendant also moved pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for the Court to reconsider its Order of Remand issued July 15, 2014. (ECF No. 14). This Court
remanded the action and held that a verbal settlement demand, made through a mediator, was not
“an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that
the case is one which is or has become removable.” (ECF No. 9) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3)).
Rule 59(e) allows a party to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment within “28 days
after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend a judgment is
“an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins.
Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (quoting 11 Wright et. al, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed.1995)). It may be granted for three reasons: (1) to follow an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new evidence; or (3) “to correct a clear

error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.
1993).
Having reviewed the email included in the Defendant’s motion to amend its notice of
removal, the Court finds that the email is an “other paper” from which the Defendant could
ascertain that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
For the above reason, the Defendant’s motion to amend its notice of removal is granted.
Further, the Defendant’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s July 15, 2014 Order of
Remand is granted. It appears that this case was calendared for trial in state court when removed,
the Court will schedule this case for trial during the November/December 2014 term of court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 21, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge