STOVALL v. HANCOCK BANK OF ALABAMA, INC., 2:12-cv-1036-MEF. (2013)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20130802613
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2013
Summary: ORDER MARK E. FULLER, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Veronica Stovall's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Reconsider Order of 07/03/13 (Doc. #14), which requests the Court to reconsider its dismissal of all counts in Plaintiff's Complaint except her 1981 race discrimination claim as alleged in Count IV of the Complaint. On July 15, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Hancock Bank of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Whitney Bank ("Defendant") to show cause why Plaintiff's motion to reconsider should no
Summary: ORDER MARK E. FULLER, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiff Veronica Stovall's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Reconsider Order of 07/03/13 (Doc. #14), which requests the Court to reconsider its dismissal of all counts in Plaintiff's Complaint except her 1981 race discrimination claim as alleged in Count IV of the Complaint. On July 15, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Hancock Bank of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Whitney Bank ("Defendant") to show cause why Plaintiff's motion to reconsider should not..
More
ORDER
MARK E. FULLER, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Veronica Stovall's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Reconsider Order of 07/03/13 (Doc. #14), which requests the Court to reconsider its dismissal of all counts in Plaintiff's Complaint except her § 1981 race discrimination claim as alleged in Count IV of the Complaint. On July 15, 2013, the Court ordered Defendant Hancock Bank of Alabama, Inc. d/b/a Whitney Bank ("Defendant") to show cause why Plaintiff's motion to reconsider should not be granted. (Doc. #15.) Defendant responded to the Court's show cause order (Doc. #16), arguing that Plaintiff has not met her burden under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because she has not demonstrated an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or clear error by the Court that would warrant reconsider of its July 3, 2013 Order.
Based on the foregoing, and having considered the arguments of the parties and the record as a whole, the Court agrees with Defendant and hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #14) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
