United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the court on the Motion for Reconsideration
[DE 14] filed by the plaintiff, United States of America, on
November 16, 2018. For the following reasons, the motion is
plaintiff, United States of America, filed a motion
requesting the court to authorize it to serve the summons and
complaint on the defendants, Romeo H. Amores, Jr. and Ma
Victoria G. Amores, by alternative means. The court
authorized the United States to serve Romeo H. Amores, Jr.
and Ma Victoria G. Amores: (1) by registered mail at an
address in the Philippines; (2) by email; and (3) by email to
Attorney Kimberly Mouratides, with instructions that Attorney
Mouratides should forward the documents to Romeo H. Amores,
Jr. and Ma Victoria G. Amores by email.
September 20, 2018, the United States filed a motion for a
clerk's entry of default against Romeo H. Amores, Jr. and
Ma Victoria G. Amores. However, the court denied the motion
because the United States had not shown proof of service. The
United States represented that as of September 19, 2018, the
summons and complaint had not yet been delivered by
registered mail to the Amoreses. Additionally, the United
States represented that it had directly sent an email to the
Amoreses, as well as from Attorney Mouratides.
United States has requested that the court reconsider its
Order denying the request for clerk's entry of default.
The United States contends that the service by email was
sufficient. Therefore, in light of the sufficient service the
United States requests the court reconsider its Order and
enter the requested defaults.
they are frequently filed, the Court of Appeals has described
a motion for reconsideration as “a motion that,
strictly speaking, does not exist under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.” Hope v. United States, 43
F.3d 1140, 1142 n.2 (7th Cir. 1994); see Talano v.
Northwestern Med. Faculty Found., Inc., 273 F.3d 757,
760 n.1 (7th Cir. 2001). This type of motion “is a
request that the [Court] reexamine its decision in light of
additional legal arguments, a change of law, or perhaps an
argument or aspect of the case which was overlooked.”
Ahmed v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 247, 249 (7th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation omitted); see Seng-Tiong Ho v.
Taflove, 648 F.3d 489, 505 (7th Cir. 2011) (explaining
that a court can amend its judgment only if the petitioner
can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly
discovered evidence) (citing Obriecht v. Raemisch,
517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v.
Ligas, 549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008) (“A
district court may reconsider a prior decision when there has
been a significant change in the law or facts since the
parties presented the issue to the court, when the court
misunderstands a party's arguments, or when the court
overreaches by deciding an issue not properly before
it.”). In Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825
(7th Cir. 1995), the Court of Appeals did not question the
availability of a motion to reconsider but stated:
It is not the purpose of allowing motions for reconsideration
to enable a party to complete presenting his case after the
court has ruled against him. Were such a procedure to be
countenanced, some lawsuits really might never end, rather
than just seeming endless.
56 F.3d at 828; see Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224
F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (“A party may not use a
motion for reconsideration to introduce new evidence that
could have been presented earlier.”); Divane v.
Krull Electric Co., 194 F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 1999);
LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d
1263, 1267 (7th Cir. 1995). Ultimately, a motion for
reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be
employed sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of scarce judicial resources.” Global
View Ltd. Venture Capital v. Great Central Basin
Exploration, 288 F.Supp.2d 482, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
(internal quotation omitted).
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3)
that service upon an individual not within a judicial
district of the United States may be effected “by other
means not prohibited by international agreement as may be
directed by the court.” Due process requires that
service of notice be “reasonably calculated, under all
circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency
of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94
L.Ed. 865 (1950).
to Rule 4(f)(3), the court authorized the United States to
serve the summons and complaint on Romeo H. Amores, Jr. and
Ma Victoria G. Amores by registered mail, email, and
by having their bankruptcy attorney, Kimberly Mouratides,
forward the email with the summons and complaint as an
attachment. The court authorized service by these three
means. However, it did not authorize service by each mean,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(1)(2) a plaintiff must submit proof of service
outside the United States or “other evidence satisfying
the court that the summons and complaint were delivered to
the addressee.” The United States has attached copies
of the emails that were sent to Romeo H. Amores, Jr. and Ma
Victoria G. Amores by counsel for the United States and
Attorney Mouratides. However, the United States has not
offered proof confirming that the Amoreses received emails.
The court finds that the emails not being returned as
undeliverable is not sufficient evidence satisfying that the