Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied pro se Plaintiff Victoria Shaneka Tillman Felton’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court concluded that she had not shown an intervening change in law, a manifest error, or newly discovered evidence establishing that the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff satisfied the Rule 59(e) standards for reconsideration by identifying an intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence, a manifest error of law or fact, or manifest injustice.
- Whether Plaintiff's additional documentation established that the amount in controversy could plausibly exceed $75,000 and therefore warranted reopening the case.
Holdings
- Reconsideration was not warranted because Plaintiff identified no intervening change in controlling law, manifest error of law or fact, or qualifying newly discovered evidence.
- The additional records did not establish that the amount in controversy could plausibly exceed $75,000; accordingly, they did not warrant reconsideration of the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” (Section II)
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” (Section II)
“Ms. Felton has not presented documentation to support a manifest error of law or fact, nor presented documents that, even liberally construed, constitute newly discovered evidence.” (Section III)
Factual background
Plaintiff alleged that Fifth Third Bank and Wisely were responsible for shortages in student-loan deposits into her bank account. The Court previously found that the supporting records showed total shortages of approximately $147 across three semesters and appeared to concern her student portal rather than her bank account. In support of reconsideration, Plaintiff again submitted screenshots from her student account and loan-servicer website, but did not submit bank statements or other evidence showing that the amounts deposited differed from the portal amounts.
Procedural history
Plaintiff sued Fifth Third Bank, N.A., and Wisely by ADP, Inc., alleging shortages in student-loan deposits. The Court previously dismissed the action under Rule 12(h)(3), finding that the amount in controversy could not plausibly exceed $75,000 and that amendment would be futile. Plaintiff then moved for reconsideration and submitted additional portal screenshots, but the Court denied the motion.