Deitemyer v. Ryback, Esq. et al, No. 1:2018cv02002 - Document 18 (D. Md. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen L. Hollander on 9/13/2019. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 9.13.19)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Deitemyer v. Ryback, Esq. et al Doc. 18 FI~.El) CI COURT U.S.[ISiF IN ftlBlfUNrrED 'ST'A-f 25l~SW9gl~~If31iq:>F rU-Ek:('S DISTRICT COURT MARYLAND OFFICE ALEXANDRA DEITEMYt~1" Gi,LTIMORE Plaintiff, BY OEP ITY Civil Action No.: ELH- 18-2002 v. STEVEN RYBACK ESQ. et a!., Defendants, MEMORANDUM On July 2, 2018, plaintiff Alexandra Deitmeyer filed suit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), Jonathan 15 U.S.c. S 1692 et seq., against defendants Steven Ryback, Esq.; W. Bierer, Esq.; Bierer Law Group, P.A. (collectively, Transworld Systems, Inc. ("Transworld"); "Attorney and I 0 unnamed defendants. Defendants"); ECF I. The Attorney Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment on September 5, 2018. ECF 4 (the "Motion"). Transworld joined the Motion. ECF 6. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 10) and Order docketed August 6, 2019 (ECF II), I granted in part and denied in part defendants' Motion. Of relevance here, I granted defendants' Motion as to plaintiffs claim lodged under IS U,S.C. S 1692i(b). ECF II. Thereafter, on September 4,2019, plaintiff filed a motion titled "Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside Interlocutory Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) And For Other Relief." ("Motion to Reconsider"). ECF 17 Plaintiff appended two exhibits to her motion. ECF 17-1; ECF 17-2. In the Motion to Reconsider, plaintiff avers that the "published text of the [FDCA] . , . contains a false statement of 15 U.S ,C. S 1692i(b) not enacted by Congress." According to plaintiff, this "defect, , ,induced the Court to clearly misconstrue Thus, plaintiff asks the Court to vacate its Order dismissing her claim under S ECF 17 at I. S 1692(c)(b)," Id. I692i(b ), based on Dockets.Justia.com "newly discovered evidence certified by the National Archives and Records Administration[.]" Id. No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion to Reconsider. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I will deny the motion. I. Discussion Motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), under which "any order ... may be revised at any time before the entry of ajudgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." A district court retains the power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments at any time before final judgment. u.s. Tobacco Coop., Inc. v. Big South Wholesale of Va., £IC, 899 F.3d 236, 256 (4th Cir. 2018); Am. Canoe Ass 'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, resolution of a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order is "committed to the discretion of the district court," id. at 5 I5, with "the goal ... to reach the correct judgment under law." Netscape Commc 'n Corp. v. Value Click, Inc., 704 F.Supp.2d 544, 547 (E.D.Va. 2010) (internal citations omitted). Nonetheless, "most courts have adhered to a fairly narrow set of grounds on which to reconsider their interlocutory orders and opinions," and will reconsider an interlocutory order only where "(I) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) there is additional evidence that was not previously available; or (3) the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice." Cezair v, JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA., No. DKC-13-2928, 2014 WL 4955535, at *1 (D. Md. Sept. 30, 2014) (citations omitted). Local reconsideration. Rule 105.10 further limits the Court's ability to entertain motions for With exceptions not applicable here, Local Rule 105.10 provides that "any motion to reconsider any order issued by the Court shall be filed with the Clerk not later than 2 fourteen (14) days after entry of the order." See, e.g., Direct Benefits, LLC v. TAC Fin., Inc., No. ROB-13-1185, 2019 WL 3804513, at *4 (D. Md. Aug. 13,2019) ("This Court has held that untimeliness is sufficient to warrant denial ofa motion for reconsideration."); Humane Soc. a/US. v. Nat'! Union Fire Ins. Co. O/Pillsburgh, No. OKC-13-1822, 2017 WL 1426007, *5 (D. Md. Apr. 21, 2017) (denying motion for reconsideration "offer[ed] no persuasive justification where it was untimely filed and the plaintiff for suspending Local Rule 105.10"). ordinarily "will not grant reconsideration And, the Court based on omitted evidence" that could have been presented to the Court before it made the interlocutory ruling at issue, unless there are sound reasons to do so. Pau!one v. City a/Frederick, Civ. No. WOQ-09-2007, 2010 WL 3000989, at *3 (D. Md. July 26, 20 I0). Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider is untimely. premised on 5 U.S.c. S The Order dismissing plaintiffs claim 1692i(b) was docketed on August 6, 2019. ECF II. Plaintiff did not file her Motion until September 4, 2017. ECF 17. Therefore, her filing is well outside the fourteenday window provide by Local Rule 105.10. And, plaintiff "offers no persuasive justification for suspending Local Rule 105.1 D." See Humane Soc. 0/ US., 2017 WL 1426007, *5. But, even if the Motion to Reconsider were timely, it would still fail. Plaintiff is correct that there is a slight discrepancy between the text of the FOCA as published in the Public Laws and the United States Code. Section 811(b) of Title 1Il of Public Law 95-109 provides: "Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the brining of legal actions by debt collectors." No. 95-109, 91 Stat. 874, 880 (1977) (emphasis added). Codified at IS U.S.c. S Pub. L. 1692i(b), that same provision in the United States Code reads: "Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize the bringing of legal actions by debt collectors." added). 3 15 U.S.C. S I692i(b ) (20 19) (emphasis However, this discrepancy is of no legal significance. Under either reading, S 1692i(b ) "does not affirmatively prohibit debt collectors from bringing legal actions, but merely declines to extend the circumstances under which they may do so[.]" ECF 10 at 24 (quoting Middlebrooks v. Sacor Fin., Inc., No. 1:17-CV-0679-SCJ-JSA, 2018)). 2018 WL 4850122, at *20 (N.D. Ga. July 25, Accordingly, I am satisfied that the arguments advanced by plaintiff do not provide grounds for relief. II. Conclusion Because I am satisfied that the Court's Memorandum (ECF 10) and Order (ECF I I) were correctly entered, I shall DENY plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider (ECF 17). A separate Order follows. Date: August I3 2019 /s/ Ellen Lipton Hollander United States District Judge 4
]]>
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.
