Berube v. FDIC

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: January 25, 1996
• Docket: CV-95-196-SD
• Status: Published

Opinion

Berube v . FDIC CV-95-196-SD 01/25/96 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Wendy S . Berube

v. Civil N o . 95-196-SD

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver of New Hampshire Savings Bank

O R D E R

Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the order granting

summary judgment to the defendant. Document 15. 1 Defendant

objects. Document 1 4 .

Summary judgment was granted because plaintiff failed to

provide the court with competent evidence that she had filed the

administrative claim required by the provisions of the Financial

Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989

(FIRREA), Pub. L . N o . 101-73, 103 Stat. 183 (codified at 12

U.S.C. § 1811, et seq. (1989 & Supp. 1995)). Document 1 0 , at 4-

7. The motion for reconsideration is grounded on an affidavit

1 Plaintiff originally filed a motion for reconsideration, which was docketed on condition that plaintiff comply with certain requirements of applicable local rules. Document 1 2 . Plaintiff subsequently filed a revised motion that so complied. Document 1 5 . from the prior office manager of plaintiff's counsel, the gist of

which is that said office manager prepared, notarized, and mailed

such administrative claim to the defendant.2 Clearly, this

information was available to plaintiff's counsel as of the time

the summary judgment motion was before the court for

consideration. The motion for reconsideration falls within the provisions

of Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.3 But motions under Rule 59(e)

either must clearly establish a manifest error of law or must

present newly discovered evidence. Jorge Rivera Surillo v .

Falconer Glass Indus., 37 F.3d 2 5 , 29 (1st Cir. 1994) (citing and

quoting FDIC v . World Univ., Inc., 978 F.2d 1 0 , 16 (1st Cir.

1992)). And it is well established that one may not, after

summary judgment has issued, attempt to introduce by medium of a

motion to reconsider evidence which was available at the time the

summary judgment motion was initially under consideration by the

court. Medley v . Westpoint Stevens, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 6 9 7 , 699

(M.D. Ala. 1995); Sussman v . Salem, Saxon & Nielsen, P.A., 153

2 This affidavit was attached to the originally filed motion. Document 1 2 . 3 Rule 59(e) provides, "A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment."

2 F.R.D. 689, 695 (M.D. Fla. 1994); Preito v . Storer

Communications, Inc., 152 F.R.D. 6 5 4 , 655 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration must be and it

is herewith denied.

SO ORDERED.

Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court January 2 5 , 1996

cc: Christopher J. Seufert, Esq. Paul G. Hayeck, Esq.