GRAY v. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY et al, No. 1:2011cv01575 - Document 69 (S.D. Ind. 2012)

Court Description: ENTRY Discussing Selected Matters - The motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal 67 is denied because final judgment has been entered on the clerk's docket. Gray's motion for ruling on motion 68 is denied as moot. (SEE ENTRY). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/6/2012. (copy to Plaintiff via US Mail) (JKS)

Download PDF
GRAY v. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY et al Doc. 69 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA DWAYNE E. GRAY, Plaintiff, vs. CONESTOGA TITLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:11-cv-1575-JMS-DKL Entry Discussing Selected Matters I. A. Dwayne Gray alleged that the defendants “used predatory lending practices, illegal entry and property damage, breach of contract, negligence, fraud, illegal affidavit of default, robo-signing, slander of title, bad faith and all against federal guidelines.” The action was dismissed on June 6, 2012. Federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, pendent state law claims against Safeguard Properties, LLC were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining pendent claims under state law were dismissed without prejudice. The entry of final judgment was followed by Gray’s filing of June 27, 2012, wherein he seeks a rehearing and certification for an interlocutory appeal. This filing was made within 28 days from the entry of judgment on the clerk’s docket. Dockets.Justia.com Given the timing of the motion for rehearing relative to the entry of final judgment, and given the arguments set forth in such motion, the motion is treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Borrero v. City of Chicago, 456 F.3d 698, 701-02 (7th Cir. 2006) (explaining that whether a motion filed within 10 days of the entry of judgment should be analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure depends on the substance of the motion, not on the timing or label affixed to it); Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)(noting that Rule 59(e) encompasses reconsideration of matters decided on the merits). The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the court reconsider matters "properly encompassed in a decision on the merits." Osterneck v. Ernst and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e) "authorizes relief when a moving party 'clearly establish[es] either a manifest error of law or fact' or 'present[s] newly discovered evidence.'" Souter v. International Union, 993 F.2d 595, 599 (7th Cir. 1993) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)). There was in this case no manifest error of law or fact. The court did not misapprehend Gray’s claims or the related litigation, nor did it misapply the law to his claims. Accordingly, the post-judgment motion for rehearing, treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment [67], is denied. B. The motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal [67] is denied because final judgment has been entered on the clerk’s docket. II. Gray’s motion for ruling on motion [68] is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. 09/06/2012 Date: __________________ _______________________________ Distribution: Dwayne E. Gray 5567 West 43rd Street Indianapolis, IN 46254 All Electronically Registered Counsel Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court Southern District of Indiana

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.