Trust et al v. Davis et al, No. 2:2017cv01502 - Document 21 (D.S.C. 2017)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION denying 20 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 9/19/2017.(sshe, )
Download PDF
Trust et al v. Davis et al Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT S~R:1r\Tu DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Christiana Trust, a division of Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity, but solely as owner trustee on behalf of RBSHD 2013-1 Trust; Bank of America, N.A., Plaintiff V. Cornell D. Davis; Juliett Marsh-Davis; American Express Centurion Bank; and Carriage Lane Homeowners Association, Inc., Defendants. ct.rn\rs 0Fr1cE 1n11 \EP I 9 P 3' \ 3 Case No 2:l 7-cv-1502 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) STF;\i~1 cir~ยท SDU ORDER AND OPINION This matter is before the Court on Defendant Juliett Marsh-Davis's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 20) of this Court's order (Dkt. No. 16) granting Plaintiffs motion to remand and denying Defendant's motion to strike. Defendant's motion for reconsideration is similar in substance to the objections she filed to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 15.) For example, Defendant asserts that she is "an American and not a Corporation" and that she is entitled to this Court's determination of whether "a corporation/entity [may] bring a suit or charges against an American National." (Dkt. No. 20 at 1.) In the Fourth Circuit, motions to reconsider are granted under a narrow set of circumstances: "(l) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Defendant's motion for reconsideration does not meet this standard because it does not identify a change in the law, new -1Dockets.Justia.com evidence, a clear error of law, or the risk of manifest injustice. For these reasons, Defendant's motion to reconsider (Dkt. No. 20) is denied. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. United States District Court Judge September I 1, 2017 Charleston, South Carolina -2-