Woodruff v. De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP

Background

Kevin Woodruff, Tanya Stutson, and Wanag Tahatan-Bey, proceeding without lawyers, filed a document titled “Trial by Affidavit.” The document did not provide a discernable factual background or individual claims for relief. Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP, which the plaintiffs had sued under the name “De Facto Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP,” moved to dismiss or, alternatively, for a more definite statement.

The court previously granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend, and judgment was entered. The earlier dismissal order noted that the filing did not state individual claims. It also addressed the plaintiffs’ reference to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act and found that allowing an amendment to assert such a claim was unwarranted.

Motion for reconsideration and jurisdiction

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and a “Petition for Reconsideration Pursuant to Civil Procedure Section 1008” on the same day. The court construed the petition as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), because federal procedural rules apply in federal court.

The court noted uncertainty about its jurisdiction to decide the motion. A notice of appeal generally transfers authority over the appealed matters to the court of appeals. A notice of appeal does not do so when a motion for reconsideration was already pending, but the court explained that it generally lacks jurisdiction over a reconsideration motion filed after the notice of appeal. Here, the notice and motion were filed on the same day, but the notice was docketed first. The court therefore stated that jurisdiction might be lacking.

Merits of reconsideration request

The court nevertheless addressed the motion in the interest of judicial economy. Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration may be appropriate when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error or a manifestly unjust decision, or an intervening change in controlling law. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly and said it cannot be used to relitigate old matters or raise arguments that could have been made before judgment.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not identify newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling law. They also did not identify clear error or injustice. Instead, the court found that they repeated issues underlying the motion to dismiss, including arguments about the National Economic Stabilization and Recovery Act, the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and their assertion that an affidavit should stand as true unless rebutted. The court stated that the plaintiffs could have raised those arguments earlier. It also stated that no law or equitable mechanism creates a “Trial by Affidavit.”

Disposition

Assuming it had jurisdiction, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. Alternatively, if jurisdiction was lacking, the court stated that it did not wish to entertain or grant such a motion and that asking the court of appeals to return the case for that purpose was unwarranted. The order did not alter the earlier dismissal judgment.