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.

Boddie v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division

May 15, 2018

DOROTHY BODDIE PLAINTIFF
v.
OCWEN FEDERAL BANK FSB AND WELLS FARGO BANK, MINNESOTA NA DEFENDANTS

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [16] FOR RECONSIDERATION

          HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff Dorothy Boddie's Motion [16] for Reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order [14] Granting Defendants' Ocwen Federal Bank FSB and Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota NA's Motion [8] to Dismiss. After consideration of the Motion, the record as a whole, and relevant legal authority, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion [16] for Reconsideration should be denied.

         I. BACKGROUND[1]

         On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff Dorothy Boddie (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint [1] in this Court against Defendants Ocwen Federal Bank FSB and Wells Fargo Bank, Minnesota NA (“Defendants”), alleging that the Chancery Court of Harrison County, Mississippi, First Judicial District, Cause Number 03-2646-3, erred in upholding Defendants' foreclosure on her house and in subsequently ordering her eviction because the Chancellor failed to review Plaintiff's evidence and instead relied upon Defendants' hearsay evidence to reach an “unjust and biased [F]inal [J]udgment.” Compl. [1] at 1-2. The Complaint asserted that Defendants “provided false and untrue information” in the Chancery Court litigation and “used predatory lending practices to pursue their legal tactics.” Id. Plaintiff sought “such relief as may be appropriate, which include[d] punitive damages and associated legal costs, the award of $100, 000 (one hundred thousand dollars). One million dollars for punitive damages.” Id. at 2.

         On August 7, 2017, Defendants filed a Motion [8] to Dismiss, urging the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6) based upon Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' Motion.

         On January 10, 2018, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order [14] Granting Defendants' Motion [8] to Dismiss, along with a corresponding Final Judgment [15], and Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed. On May 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the present Motion [16] for Reconsideration, which appears to argue that she is entitled to relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         “While a final judgment is normally just that, final, Rule 60(b) provides a mechanism by which parties can, in certain situations, obtain relief from a final judgment absent an order from an appellate court.” United States v. Fernandez, 797 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 2015). This Rule provides that:

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 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation or misconduct ...

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.