Channer v. Loan Care Servicing Center, Inc. et al
Filing
42
ORDER denying 22 Motion for Reconsideration of 17 Ruling Denying Motion to Remand. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/14/11. (Hungerford, A.)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LORNA Y. CHANNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
LOAN CARE SERV. CTR., INC., et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
3:11cv135 (SRU)
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
The plaintiff, Lorna Y. Channer, appearing pro se, moves for reconsideration of the
court’s order denying her motion to remand her case to state court. Doc. 22. Channer primarily
argues that the case should be remanded because the applicable law in the case is state law, and
because the defendant has no standing. For the following reasons, the motion for reconsideration
is DENIED.
I.
Standard of Review
The standard for granting motions for reconsideration is strict; motions for
reconsideration “will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
decisions or data that the court overlooked – matters, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). Motions for reconsideration will not be granted where the party merely
seeks to relitigate an issue that has already been decided. Id. The three major grounds for
granting a motion for reconsideration in the Second Circuit are: (1) an intervening change of
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. Virgin Atlantic Airways, Ltd. v. Nat’l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245,
1255 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper,
Federal Practice & Procedure § 4778).
II.
Discussion
Channer argues that my ruling denying her motion to remand was misplaced because (1)
state law controls this case, and (2) the defendant, the Governmental National Mortgage
Association (“Ginnie Mae”), does not have standing. Channer’s arguments are nothing more
than an attempt to relitigate the underlying motion to remand. I address each argument in turn.
First, Channer argues that her motion to remand should be granted because “state
substantive law controls the rights of note and lien holders.” Federal jurisdiction is conferred
here because Channer has sued Ginnie Mae, among others. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), when
a United States agency is sued in state court for an action committed in its official capacity, that
agency may remove the action “to district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending.” Federal courts can apply state substantive law, and
thus the presence of state causes of action does not affect federal jurisdiction.
Channer next argues that Ginnie Mae does not have standing to remove the case to
federal court. Channer states that a “plaintiff must have Constitutional standing in order for a
federal court to have jurisdiction.” Channer is correct, but she is the plaintiff in this case, not
Ginnie Mae. Standing is not a doctrine that applies to defendants in this case, and thus
Channer’s standing argument is misplaced.1
III.
1
Conclusion
Channer also argues that Ginnie Mae does not have standing to make a claim to her property.
That argument goes to the merits of her lawsuit, not to whether there is federal jurisdiction in this
case.
For the reasons set forth above, Channer’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 22), is
DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 14th day of June 2011.
/s/ Stefan R. Underhill
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge
]]>
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?
