Gray v. Land Home Financial Services, Inc.
- Susan Nelson
- 0:23-cv-02082
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Gray v. Land Home Financial Services, Judge Nelson denied Gray’s request to reconsider the dismissal of his foreclosure-related complaint.
Brandon-Michael Gray and the defendants. Gray’s motion to reconsider was denied, and the earlier order dismissing his complaint with prejudice was not changed.
What happened
In Gray v. Land Home Financial Services, Inc., Brandon-Michael Gray asked the court to reconsider its earlier order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. Gray represented himself, and the court treated his filing as also asking permission to seek reconsideration.
Gray argued that the earlier order wrongly found he had not plausibly alleged a due process violation. He also raised new theories involving alleged fraud, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied the motion. She ruled that Gray was repeating an argument the court had already considered and was also presenting new legal theories and allegations that were not appropriate for a reconsideration motion.
The detailed version
- Gray v. Land Home Financial Services, Inc. · No. 0:23-cv-02082
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 18, 2023
Background
The court was considering Brandon-Michael Gray’s Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s December 6, 2023 order dismissing his complaint with prejudice. The defendants were Land Home Financial Services, Inc.; Liebo, Weingarden, Dobie & Barbee, PLLP; and Usset Weingarden & Liebo, PLLP. Gray represented himself.
Reconsideration standard
The court stated that its local rules require a party to request and obtain permission before filing a motion for reconsideration, based on compelling circumstances. Gray had not requested permission. The court nevertheless treated his motion as a request for permission and considered it. It explained that reconsideration is limited to correcting a clear legal or factual error or addressing newly discovered evidence. It is not a way to repeat an argument or raise new legal theories for the first time.
Gray’s arguments
Gray argued that the earlier order made a clear legal error by finding that he had not plausibly alleged a due process violation. In particular, he challenged the court’s conclusion concerning whether a sheriff’s participation in a mortgage foreclosure sale constituted state action. The court said it had already considered that issue and that Gray’s motion merely argued the point more fully.
Gray also argued that alleged fraud and discrepancies in the mortgage sale constituted due process violations. The court said those discrepancies had already been alleged and considered. To the extent Gray was arguing that the documents themselves established state action, the court treated that as a new legal theory and declined to consider it. The court likewise declined to consider new allegations that the defendants committed criminal fraud or violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act during the foreclosure process. The court stated that those alleged violations did not resolve the lack of state action and could not be raised as new claims for the first time in a reconsideration motion.
Ruling
Judge Susan Richard Nelson denied Gray’s Motion to Reconsider. The order does not change the earlier order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.