Landmark Infrastructure Holding Co. Llc & Landmark Dividend Llc v. Speculators

Landmark Infrastructure Holding Co. Llc & Landmark Dividend Llc v. Speculators

Opinion

ORDER

Before the Court are five motions filed by Defendants Marshall Bailey, Shirley Bailey, and Matthew Bailey (the "Baileys"). [See Docs. 109, 122, 132, 133, 134.]¹ In their first motion, the Baileys assert there was fraud on the Court and move for default judgment and to dismiss the case. [Doc. 109 at 1.] The Baileys insist [*2]  the Court was "bamboozled" by Plaintiffs regarding the contract at issue and also "dispute" and "challenge" the Court's ruling as to Plaintiffs' service on Defendants. [Id. at 2, 4-5.] In their second motion, the Baileys ask the Court to apply California law to the contract at issue and to dismiss the case because the contract was void. [Doc. 122 at 1-5.] In their third motion, the Baileys move for a mistrial because they "sustained cognitive head trauma" and thus were "UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES." [Doc. 132 at 1, 4.] In their fourth motion, the Baileys claim they were "never legally served" and therefore demand a mistrial. [Doc. 133 at 1.] In the final motion, Marshall moves to dismiss Matthew as a defendant and asks for a mistrial. [Doc. 134 at 1.] According to Marshall, Matthew was "unlawfully inserted in this case" because he "NEVER SIGNED A DOCUMENT." [Id. at 1-2.]

The Court has already addressed, either explicitly or implicitly, all of the issues raised by these motions. Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs properly served Defendants [Docs. 18, [*3]  102]; the Court applied Georgia law, not California law, to the contract and determined it was valid [see Doc. 82 at 9-15]; the Court denied a motion to dismiss filed by Matthew that argued he "did not sign anything" and that including him in the case was "unlawful" [see Doc. 59 at 1, 8; Doc. 82 at 21-23 & n.16; Doc. 87 at 2]; and the Court entered judgment against Defendants after considering their defense notwithstanding Marshall's testimony about the Baileys' supposed head trauma [see Doc. 128 at 11-17, 165-67, 305-06; see also Doc. 131]. As such, the Court construes the Baileys' five motions as motions for reconsideration.

The decision to grant a motion for reconsideration is committed to this Court's "sound discretion." Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009). It is well-established that such a motion "cannot be used to relitigate old matters." Id. (quotation mark omitted). Here, as noted, the Baileys improperly attempt to rehash issues already resolved by the Court. And, even to the extent the Baileys raise issues that have not already been decided, a motion for reconsideration cannot raise "new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed." Id. (quotation marks omitted). The Baileys do not explain how [*4]  any of the arguments in their motions were previously unavailable.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.