United States District Court, D. Hawaii
MINA E. HEMMY, Plaintiff,
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
E. KOBAYASHI, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
argues that this Court should grant her Rule 60 relief
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 ...