United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Brunswick Division
MARVIN B. SMITH, III & SHARON H. SMITH, Plaintiffs,
HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; S. ANDREW SHUPING, JR.; SHUPING, MORSE & ROSS LLP; RUBIN LUBLIN, LLC; BRET CHANESS; and PETER LUBLIN, Defendants.
LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration from Plaintiffs
Marvin B. Smith, III and Sharon H. Smith: the first asking
the Court to reconsider its Order on Motion to Stay (Dkt. No.
85), and the second asking the Court to reconsider its Order
on the Motion to Dismiss, the Motion for Reconsideration, the
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, the Motion to Stay, the
Motion to Amend/Correct, and the Motion to Strike (Dkt. No.
87) . For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs'
Motions for Reconsideration are DENIED.
over a decade, the Smiths have been involved in a bankruptcy
case. In re Smith, No. 07-20244 (Bankr. S.D. Ga.
Apr. 2, 2007). On August 8, 2017, Plaintiffs moved to enforce
a bankruptcy stay they claim prevented HSBC from foreclosing
on the Property and evicting Plaintiffs. Dkt. No. 69. That
same day, the Court found that HSBC had not violated any such
bankruptcy stay because a Consent Order entered in
Plaintiffs' bankruptcy permitted HSBC to foreclose and
evict Plaintiffs from the Property. Dkt. No. 70.
on September 1, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs'
federal claims. Dkt. No. 84 p. 14. The Court found that
Plaintiffs' claims of fraud upon the Court were
meritless, because the Bankruptcy Court had rejected these
contentions "half a decade ago." Dkt. No. 84 p. 9.
The Court likewise found that the contention was bound by
res judiciata because (1) Plaintiffs had previously
made this argument before the Bankruptcy Court, and the
argument was rejected, and (2) to the extent any additional
evidence now exists that Plaintiffs could have brought before
the Bankruptcy Court in support of this claim, res
judicata barred any claims or new evidence Plaintiffs
could have brought before the Bankruptcy Court. Id.
The Court likewise dismissed Plaintiffs' claim under the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Id. at
10. Lastly, the Court found: (1) that Plaintiffs'
constitutional claims were meritless, and (2) Plaintiffs'
federal RICO claim was due to be dismissed. In the Order, the
Court found that "[a]11 other outstanding motions are
DENIED as moot." Id. at 14.
same day the Court entered its dismissal, Plaintiff entered a
Motion for Reconsideration asking for the Court's
reconsideration of its Order on the Motion to Stay. Dkt. No.
85. On September 5, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted another Motion
for Reconsideration: this time of the Court's Order
dismissing the case. Dkt. No. 87.
of an earlier order is an extraordinary remedy, which should
be granted sparingly." Whitesell Corp. v. Electolux
Home Prods., Inc., 2010 WL 4025943, at *7 (S.D. Ga.
2010). In order to grant such a motion, "[t]here must be
a reason why a court should reconsider its prior decision,
and the moving party must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to induce the court to amend its
prior decision." Mehta v. Foskey, 2013 WL
1808764, at *1 (S.D. Ga. 2013). Reconsideration is only
appropriate if the moving party demonstrates: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability
of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Estate of Pidcock By and
Through Pidcock v. Sunnyland Am., Inc., 726 F.Supp.
1322, 1333 (S.D. Ga. 1989). Any decision to grant a motion
for reconsideration rests within the sound discretion of the
district court. Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc.
v. State of Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab Servs.,
225 F.3d 1208, 1216 (11th Cir. 2000).
motion for reconsideration is not properly used as a vehicle
"to present the court with arguments already heard and
dismissed or to repackage familiar arguments to test whether
the court will change its mind." Bryan v.
Murphy, 246 F.Supp.2d 1256, 1259 (N.D.Ga. 2003). Nor do
such motions present an opportunity to instruct the Court on
how itw*could have done it better' the first
time." Pres. Endangered Areas of Cobb's History,
Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 916 F.Supp. 1557,
1560 (N.D.Ga. 1995).
raise several arguments as to why their Motions for
Reconsideration are due to be granted. The Court examines
each in turn, determining whether any of the issues raised
demonstrate: (1) an intervening change in controlling law,
(2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to
correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice, which
would justify the Court's reconsideration. Estate of
Pidcock, 726 F.Supp. at 1333.
Issues Raised in the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order
on the Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 85)
ask for reconsideration of the Order on the Motion to Stay on
two grounds. Neither ground serves as a basis for the
Court's reconsideration of its prior Order.
Whether Plaintiffs' mortgage was in the trust for which