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.

Ward v. Branch Banking & Trust

United States District Court, D. Maryland

May 22, 2017

PHILLIP WARD, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BRANCH BANKING & TRUST, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM

          ELLEN L. HOLLANDER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Plaintiffs Phillip and Deidre Ward, who are self-represented, filed suit in July 2013 against defendants Branch Banking & Trust Company (“BB&T”) and Fisher Law Group, PLLC (“Fisher Law Group”). See ECF 2. Their suit contained multiple counts related to defendants' attempt to foreclose plaintiffs' home in Glenn Dale, Maryland (the “Property”). See id. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in September 2013. ECF 14.

         Plaintiffs' claims against the Fisher Law Group were dismissed in June 2014, along with four of the five counts alleged against BB&T. See ECF 28 (Memorandum); ECF 29 (Order). In February 2016, BB&T moved for summary judgment with respect to the remaining claim, alleging a violation of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq. ECF 89. By Memorandum Opinion (ECF 92) and Order (ECF 93) of May 17, 2016, I granted BB&T's motion for summary judgment.

         On July 18, 2016, the Wards simultaneously filed a “Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal” (ECF 94) and a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit. ECF 95. The Wards sought an extension because the appeal was otherwise untimely. See ECF 95. BB&T opposed the motion for extension (ECF 100) and the Wards replied. ECF 101. By Memorandum (ECF 102) and Order (ECF 103) of August 25, 2016, I denied the motion for extension. In ECF 102, I explained that the Wards failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. ECF 102 at 11. The Fourth Circuit subsequently dismissed the appeal on February 27, 2017, as untimely filed. ECF 105. The mandate issued on March 21, 2017. ECF 106.

         On May 16, 2017, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), the Wards filed “Pro Se Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment of this Court's Final Order Granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Branch Banking and Trust.” ECF 107. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law. ECF 107-1 (collectively, “Motion”). The Wards ask the Court to vacate the Order (ECF 93) granting summary judgment to BB&T. ECF 107. In particular, they claim that during discovery, BB&T failed to disclose Christina Powers and Mary Elizabeth Schwiers as expert witnesses under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), yet both provided declarations in regard to BB&T's summary judgment motion. ECF 107-1 at 6.

         Although plaintiffs recognize that the requested remedy is “extraordinary”, they claim it is necessary to “prevent manifest injustice . . . .” ECF 107 at 1. They also add that they are “providing new arguments not previously raised”, relating to discovery violations. ECF 107-1 at 3.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides:

         On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

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.