Maynard v. United Services Automobile Association Federal Savings Bank

Background

Joshua Maynard, appearing without a lawyer, filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The filings were nearly identical. On March 31, 2023, the court had granted United Services Automobile Association Federal Savings Bank’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in the bank’s favor.

Motion for reconsideration

The court explained that its local rule permits reconsideration only in specified circumstances, such as a material difference in facts or law, new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or a failure to consider important facts or legal arguments previously presented. The rule also bars using reconsideration to reargue matters already raised.

The court held that the motion was procedurally improper because the earlier summary-judgment order had adjudicated all claims and the parties’ rights and liabilities before Maynard sought reconsideration. The court also reviewed the substance of the motion and found that Maynard’s arguments had already been presented and considered, and that no new material facts or change in law required reconsideration. The court denied the motion for reconsideration.

Motion to alter or amend the judgment

The court considered the request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. It stated that altering or amending a judgment may be warranted for a serious legal or factual error, newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, a serious injustice, or an intervening change in controlling law.

The court found none of those grounds. It stated that Maynard had repeated the facts and law from his opposition to the original summary-judgment motion, had presented no newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, and had not shown that the earlier judgment was based on a serious injustice or a change in controlling law. The court denied the motion to alter or amend the judgment.

Request for recusal

Maynard also asked the court to recuse itself, arguing that the court favored the bank because it granted summary judgment and entered judgment for the bank. The court said the request was moot because it had found no basis for reconsideration or relief from judgment. It separately held that an adverse ruling is not an adequate basis for recusal and denied the request for recusal.

Disposition

Judge Jeffrey S. White denied Maynard’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, denied his motion to alter or amend the judgment, and denied his request for recusal.