Case Activity (37340)

1. Order | Filed: August 31, 2026 | Entered: September 01, 2026 Johnson v. Rocket Mortgage LLC et al

   Real Property: Foreclosure | Texas Northern

   Order Accepting/Adopting Findings and Recommendations

   ORDER ACCEPTING 14 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE on Motion re: 3 Motion for TRO filed by Ameedah Johnson. Plaintiff Ameedah E. Johnson's Emergency Motion to Extend Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Karen Gren Scholer on 8/31/2026) (cea)

2. Order | Filed: September 01, 2026 | Entered: September 01, 2026 Yeboah v. State of Connecticut et al

   Real Property: Foreclosure | Connecticut

   Order on Motion for Reconsideration

   ORDER denying 118 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Local Rule 7(c) allows the filing of "[m]otions for reconsideration," but cautions that such motions "shall not be routinely filed and shall satisfy the strict standard applicable to such motions." D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1. "The standard for granting [reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked-- matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Van Buskirk v. United Grp. of Cos., Inc., 935 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2019); see also D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c)1; Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) (cleaned up) (reconsideration warranted "only when the party identifies an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice"). A motion for reconsideration is "not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a second bite at the apple." Analytical Surveys, Inc. v. Tonga Partners, L.P., 684 F.3d 36, 52 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
   
   Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration does not meet the applicable legal standard. The Court denied the motion for leave to amend without prejudice, primarily for failure to comply with an applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure concerning opposing parties' consent, which Plaintiffs do not address in their motion for reconsideration. Plaintiffs may renew their motion for leave to amend the complaint; however, they shall adhere to the Court's order at ECF No. 113. If Plaintiffs renew their motion, any proposed third amended complaint must contain all Defendants' names in the case caption and contain numbered paragraphs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)-(b). Any renewed motion must also adhere to Rule 15(a)(2) with respect to seeking written consent of opposing parties before filing. If the opposing parties do not consent and leave of Court is required for the amendment, Plaintiffs must further adhere to District of Connecticut Local Rule 7(f), which requires a statement that: (i) the movant has inquired of all non-moving parties and there is agreement or objection to the motion; or (ii) despite diligent effort, including making the inquiry in sufficient time to afford non-movant a reasonable opportunity to respond, the movant cannot ascertain the position(s) of the non-movant(s). Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 9/1/2026. (IM)

3. 37338 additional result(s)