January 13, 2014
GREG SHAW, Plaintiff,
ONEWEST BANK, FSB et al., Defendants.
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
ROBERT L.WILKINS, United States District Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Greg Shaw's motion to stay the Court's memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying in part Defendants McCurdy & Candler, LLC ("McCurdy") and OneWest Bank, FSBs' ("OneWest") motions to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint. Dkt. No. 22. The Court denies this motion.
Although styled as a "motion to stay, " the plaintiffs motion is effectively a motion for reconsideration because it cites Rule 59(e) and requests the Court to "alter or amend judgment... for errors and omissions made by the court." See Dkt. No. 22 at 1. A Rule 59(e) motion "is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Dyson v. Dist. of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 420 (D.C. Cir. 2013). In support of his motion, the plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly found that Mr. Shaw's loan was transferred to Defendant OneWest, and that the federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia is the proper court for this litigation. See Dkt. No. 22 at 2. These arguments do not satisfy the plaintiffs high burden. See, e.g., SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 915 F.Supp.2d 69, 72 (D.D.C. 2013) ("A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to stay is DENIED.