From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shaw v. Onewest Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jan 13, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1526 (RLW) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2014)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 13-cv-1526 (RLW)

01-13-2014

GREG SHAW, Plaintiff, v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB et al., Defendants.


SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Greg Shaw's motion to stay the Court's memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendants McCurdy & Candler, LLC ("McCurdy") and OneWest Bank, FSBs' ("OneWest") motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. Dkt. No. 22. The Court denies this motion.

The Court initially issued this memorandum opinion and order on December 18, 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Court granted OneWest's motion for reconsideration in order to clarify the scope of the Court's order.

Although styled as a "motion to stay," the plaintiff's motion is effectively a motion for reconsideration because it cites Rule 59(e) and requests the Court to "alter or amend judgment ... for errors and omissions made by the court." See Dkt. No. 22 at 1. A Rule 59(e) motion "is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Dyson v. Dist. of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 420 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In support of his motion, the plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly found that Mr. Shaw's loan was transferred to Defendant OneWest, and that the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia is the proper court for this litigation. See Dkt. No. 22 at 2. These arguments do not satisfy the plaintiff's high burden. See, e.g., SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 915 F. Supp. 2d 69, 72 (D.D.C. 2013) ("A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.") (internal quotation marks omitted).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay is DENIED. SO ORDERED.

__________

ROBERT L. WILKINS

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Shaw v. Onewest Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Jan 13, 2014
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1526 (RLW) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2014)
Case details for

Shaw v. Onewest Bank

Case Details

Full title:GREG SHAW, Plaintiff, v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Jan 13, 2014

Citations

Civil Action No. 13-cv-1526 (RLW) (D.D.C. Jan. 13, 2014)