Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fish v. Stone, Higgs & Drexler, P.C.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

April 19, 2018

BENJAMIN FISH, Plaintiff,
v.
STONE, HIGGS & DREXLER, P.C., Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

          SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Benjamin Fish's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, filed on January 25, 2018. (ECF No. 29.) Defendant Stone, Higgs & Drexler, P.C. responded on February 8, 2018. (ECF No. 30.)

         For the reasons below, Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED.

         I. Background

         The facts are stated more fully in the Order dated December 29, 2017. (ECF No. 27.)

         On February 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)[1] The Complaint alleged that Defendant had “violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2) by bringing a legal action on a debt against Plaintiff when it filed an application to enroll a foreign judgment for the Debt against Plaintiff” and “by bringing a legal action on a debt against Plaintiff when it filed an application for a writ of execution to enforce the judgment for the Debt against Plaintiff.” (Id. at 6-7.)

         On July 12, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 17; see also ECF No. 17-1.) Plaintiff responded on August 9, 2017. (ECF No. 23.) Defendant replied on August 23, 2017. (ECF No. 25.)

         Also on July 12, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Plaintiff's Counsel (“Rule 11 Motion”). (ECF No. 18; see ECF No. 18-1.) Plaintiff responded on July 26, 2017. (ECF No. 22.)

         On July 26, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 20.) Defendant responded on August 23, 2017. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff replied on September 6, 2017. (ECF No. 26.)

         On December 29, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and denying Defendant's Rule 11 Motion. (ECF No. 27.) The Court concluded that “[w]age garnishment proceedings in Tennessee are not legal actions ‘against any consumer' under § 1692i.” (Id. at 344.) Thus, “[t]he [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”)] does not apply to Defendant's garnishment of Plaintiff's wages.” (Id.)

         On December 29, 2017, the Court entered judgment for Defendant. (ECF No. 28.)

         Plaintiff now moves the Court to Alter or Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 29.)

         II. Standard of Review

         Within 28 days after the entry of judgment, a party may file a motion to alter or amend the judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent a manifest injustice.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson,428 F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005). “The purpose of Rule 59(e) is ‘to allow the district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.'” Howard v. United States,533 F.3d 472, 475 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting York v. Tate,858 F.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.