Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hemmy v. Midland Funding LLC

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

June 15, 2017

MINA E. HEMMY, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On May 31, 2017, this Court issued its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant Kirk Neste's Counter-motion for Summary Judgment (“5/31/17 Order”). [Dkt. no. 87.] On June 9, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Mina E. Hemmy (“Plaintiff” or “Hemmy”) filed Plaintiff's Declaration and Motion for Reconsideration. [Dkt. no. 88.] The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). After careful consideration of the motion and the relevant legal authority, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is HEREBY DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

         DISCUSSION

         On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and, on February 10, 2017, Defendant Kirk Neste (“Neste”) filed his joint memorandum in opposition to Plaintiff's motion and his Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Counter-Motion”). [Dkt. nos. 35, 55.] In the 5/31/17 Order, this Court granted the Counter-Motion as to all of the claims against in Plaintiff's Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief (“Complaint”), filed July 25, 2016, and directed the entry of judgment unless Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. [5/31/17 Order at 16.] In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its rulings in the 5/31/17 Order and to grant her relief from the pending judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. Rule 60(b) states:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

         Plaintiff argues that this Court should grant her Rule 60 relief because of:

i. A mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect on the part of the defendant's oversight to present and articulate critical argument from 3rd party witness testimony.
ii. Newly discovered evidence from new witness testimony which by due diligence can only be discovered by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.