United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
reasons provided below, the Court denies the parties'
Motions for Reconsideration [79, 81].
a wrongful foreclosure case. The Court discussed its factual
background in a previous opinion. See Green v. Lakeview
Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-156-KS-MTP, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 17565, at *1-*2 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 12, 2016).
Plaintiff Melissa Green (“Plaintiff”) asserted
claims of wrongful foreclosure, trespass, conversion, and
intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Defendants filed Motions for Summary Judgment [66, 68]. The
Court granted the motion of Defendants Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC and M & T Bank . The Court granted in
part and denied in part the Motion of Defendants Tanya Grey
and Lukeith Ridgeway . Specifically, the Court denied the
motion as to Plaintiff's claims of trespass, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction
of emotional distress against Ridgeway, but the Court granted
the motion in all other respects. (See Order  at
p. 1.) Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration  of
the Court's order granting Lakeview and M & T
Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment , and Ridgeway
filed a Motion for Reconsideration  of the Court's
order denying his own Motion for Summary Judgment .
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the motions were filed within 28 days of the Court's
rulings, they are treated as motions under Rule 59(e).
Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines
Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 1989). A Rule 59(e)
motion to alter a judgment should not be granted unless there
is: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) new
evidence that could not have been diligently discovered
earlier; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or
fact or to prevent a manifest injustice. Infusion Res.,
Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th Cir.
2003); Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342
F.3d 563, 567-68 (5th Cir. 2003).
party submits additional evidence not part of the summary
judgment record for reconsideration, the court considers
“the reasons for the moving party's default, the
importance of the omitted evidence to the moving party's
case, whether the evidence was available before the party
responded to the summary judgment motion, and the
likelihood that the nonmoving party will suffer unfair
prejudice if the case is reopened.” Snavely v.
Nordskog Elec. Vehicles Marketeer, 947 F.Supp. 999, 1011
(S.D.Miss. 1996) (emphasis in original). Motions for
reconsideration should not be used to relitigate old matters
or present evidence that could have been raised prior to
entry of judgment. Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332
F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003). Rule 59(e) is not
“intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional
chance to sway the judge.” Atkins v. Marathon Le
Torneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D.Miss. 1990). The
Court has “considerable discretion” when
considering Rule 59(e) motions. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v.
Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). But
granting a Rule 59(e) motion is “an extraordinary
remedy, ” and it “should be used
sparingly.” In re Pequeno, 240 F.App'x
634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007).
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 
has not cited any change in controlling law relevant. Rather,
Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to properly apply the
summary judgment standard, and she presents new evidence.
although Plaintiff presented new evidence in support of her
Motion for Reconsideration, she failed to show that it was
unavailable before the Court's previous ruling. The 2014
notice of default and the information provided in the new
affidavits were, without question, “plainly available
or easily discovered before summary judgment.” ICEE
Distributors, Inc. v. J & J Snack Foods Corp., 445
F.3d 841, 848 (5th Cir. 2006). The Contact Letter from Lender
[79-2] was sent in April of 2014 over three years prior to
Court's Order. The affidavit from counsel [79-4] was also
available to Plaintiff as it addresses attempts to contact
other parties before the relevant events occurred.
(See Counsel Affidavit [79-4] at p. 1-2.) Finally,
the affidavit of a postal employee [79-3] was also easily
obtainable during the discovery period.
knew that whether the March 5, 2015 document was mailed was
an issue, as they raised it in their brief. (See
Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment  at p. 2.)
Plaintiff could have obtained this information while the
motion was still pending and failed to do so. Because she has
not demonstrated that the new evidence was previously
unavailable, and offers no explanation as to why she failed
to present it earlier, the Court denies her motion.
Id. at 847.
granting summary judgment in favor of Lakeview and M & T
does not create an inequitable result. The Deed of Trust set
forth a very specific process for providing notice which
Defendants followed and Plaintiff did not. (See
Order  at p. 3-5.) No manifest injustice or clear error
of law will result from the parties' contract being
applied as written. Plaintiff's contention that the Court
improperly assessed the parties' credibility is
meritless. The Court's previous opinion speaks for
itself, and the Court will not belabor the issue.
Plaintiff argues that her claim for wrongful foreclosure was
not only based on lack of notice, but also a lack of
opportunity to cure the default. But the record clearly
demonstrates that Plaintiff was provided opportunity to cure
the default. On May 1, 2014, M & T sent her a notice of
default that specifically provided that she must pay the
amount of $3, 212.43 to bring the loan current. Exhibit 1 to
Motion for Summary Judgment at 31, Green v. Lakeview Loan
Servicing, LLC, No. 2:15-CV-156-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Apr.
17, 2017), ECF No. 66-1. Moreover, on March 6, 2015,
Defendant's foreclosure counsel sent a payoff quote to
the subject property's address. Exhibit 2 to Motion for
Summary Judgment at 5, Green v. Lakeview Loan Servicing,
LLC, No. 2:15-CV-156-KS-MTP (S.D.Miss. Apr. 17, 2017),
ECF No. 66-2. Plaintiff does not ...