Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust…
Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust 2006-FF6, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2006-F6
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-00205
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sterling v. Deutsche Bank, Judge Daniels denied Sterling’s motions to reconsider and set aside the earlier summary-judgment dismissal, closing the case.
Everton Sterling and the defendants; the court denied Sterling’s motions and closed the case.
What happened
In Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for FEMIT Trust 2006-FF6, Everton Sterling asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision dismissing his claims on summary judgment and to set that judgment aside as legally invalid.
The court explained that reconsideration requires a change in controlling law, new evidence, or correction of a clear error or serious injustice. It also explained that a judgment is legally invalid only if the court lacked authority over the case or parties, or acted inconsistently with due process. The court said Sterling met neither standard and had not provided a basis for relief.
Judge George B. Daniels denied both motions and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions and the case.
The detailed version
- Sterling v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustss for Femit Trust… · No. 1:19-cv-00205
- George Daniels
- Sept. 29, 2023
Background
Pro se plaintiff Everton Sterling moved for reconsideration of the court’s prior Memorandum Decision and Order, which had dismissed his claims on summary judgment. He also moved to vacate that judgment as void, meaning legally invalid. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Standards Applied
For reconsideration, the court required Sterling to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. For vacatur as void, the court stated that a judgment is void only when the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, lacked jurisdiction over a party, or acted inconsistently with due process of law.
Ruling
The court found that Sterling had not met either standard and had not articulated a basis for relief. Judge George B. Daniels therefore denied both motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 181 and 190 and to close the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.