United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Marvin J. Garbis United States District Judge
The Court has before it Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [Document 60] and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff relating thereto. The Court finds that neither a response nor a hearing is necessary.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit "ha[s] recognized that there are three grounds for amending an earlier judgment" under Rule 59(e):
(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law;
(2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or
(3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Weyerhaeuser Corp. v. Koppers Co., 771 F.Supp. 1406, 1419 (D. Md. 1991).
A motion for reconsideration "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before [the determination on which reconsideration is sought was] issued." Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986). Stated differently, "'[a] motion to reconsider is not a license to reargue the merits or present new evidence.'" Gray-Hopkins v. Prince George's Cnty., Md., 201 F.Supp.2d 523, 524 (D. Md. 2002) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff does not contend that there has been any change in the law or that new evidence has become available. Plaintiff, presumably, is contending that revision of the decision is necessary to correct clear error or to prevent manifest injustice. The Court finds neither an error nor injustice in its decision.
Plaintiff has the burden of proving the elements of the tort of fraudulent concealment by clear and convincing evidence.
"To be clear and convincing, evidence should be 'clear' in the sense that it is certain, plain to the understanding, and unambiguous and convincing in a sense that it is so reasonable and persuasive as to cause you to believe it." Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Levin, 91 A.3d 1101, 1105 (Md. 2014) (emphasis added) (citation omitted). Plaintiff has not presented evidence adequate to meet that standard, at least with regard to establishing knowledge of the existence of a bedbug infestation in the Unit on December 4, 2012 or an intent to defraud.
Plaintiff's theory is, essentially, that the Hunters Glen employee who rented the Unit to her on December 4, 2012, must have known that there had been a bedbug infestation on October 22, 2012 and would have been grossly negligent in not checking to be sure that the infestation had been eliminated by December 4, 2012. Plaintiff has not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person renting the Unit both knew of the past bedbug infestation, and also checked the Unit and became aware that the infestation remained.
(4) the plaintiff took action in justifiable reliance on the ...