Mumin v. Miller & Milone, P.C.
- George Daniels
- 1:21-cv-01553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mumin v. Miller & Milone, Judge Daniels denied reconsideration of summary judgment dismissing Ayana Mumin’s debt-collection case for lack of standing.
Ayana Mumin and Miller & Milone, P.C.; the proposed class action remained dismissed under the earlier order.
What happened
In Mumin v. Miller & Milone, Ayana Mumin asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting Miller & Milone, P.C.’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing her proposed class action. The earlier decision found that Mumin had not shown standing because she identified no actual damages from the alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a federal debt-collection law.
Mumin did not challenge the finding that she lacked standing. Instead, she argued that the court should have dismissed the case under the rule governing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction rather than grant summary judgment. She relied on arguments she had already made and did not identify overlooked controlling decisions, new evidence, or new facts.
Judge Daniels denied Mumin’s motion for reconsideration. He ruled that courts may grant summary judgment on standing and that reconsideration is not a chance to repeat arguments the court has already considered and rejected.
The detailed version
- Mumin v. Miller & Milone, P.C. · No. 1:21-cv-01553
- George Daniels
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Ayana Mumin brought a proposed class action against Miller & Milone, P.C. under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In a November 10, 2022 order, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action after finding that Mumin had not established standing. The court’s stated basis was that Mumin had identified no actual damages that she suffered.
Mumin moved for reconsideration of that order. She did not dispute the court’s finding that the evidence and her own admissions failed to establish standing. Instead, she argued that the court had erred by granting summary judgment rather than dismissing the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent serious injustice. A party may not use reconsideration simply to reargue issues already decided.
The court rejected Mumin’s argument about the procedural vehicle. It cited decisions holding that courts may grant summary judgment on the issue of standing, including decisions in FDCPA cases. The court also found that Mumin had repeated arguments made in opposition to the earlier summary-judgment motion and had not identified overlooked controlling authority, new evidence, or facts that could not have been presented earlier.
Disposition
Judge George B. Daniels denied Mumin’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion. The opinion addresses the reconsideration motion; it does not state that the earlier dismissal was changed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.