WONG v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
2:16-cv-02254
D.N.J.Jul 31, 2019Background
- Appellant Grace S. Wong appealed a Bankruptcy Court ruling that dismissed her amended complaint challenging actions by PNC Bank; appeal filed April 20, 2016.
- PNC moved to dismiss the appeal; the District Court granted in part and denied in part and later ordered additional briefing.
- The District Court issued an opinion on September 28, 2018 (amended Oct. 2, 2018) affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal and closed the case.
- Wong, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for reconsideration on October 26, 2018; PNC opposed and Wong replied.
- The motion argued that PNC violated the automatic stay and that Wong had prudential standing to pursue the claim; the District Court found no basis for reconsideration.
- The Court denied reconsideration because Wong failed to identify intervening change in law, new evidence, or clear error of law or manifest injustice; her motion merely reargued prior rejected points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court should reconsider its Oct. 2, 2018 opinion | Wong argued the Court overlooked that PNC violated the automatic stay and that she has prudential standing | PNC argued no grounds for reconsideration; the prior ruling was correct | Denied — reconsideration is extraordinary and not warranted because no intervening law, new evidence, or clear error was shown |
| Whether Wong has standing to assert an automatic-stay violation on behalf of the debtor | Wong argued she has prudential standing to pursue the claim | PNC argued Wong is not the debtor and lacks standing | Held — Wong is not the debtor and lacks standing to assert the debtor’s automatic-stay rights |
| Whether the Bankruptcy Court erred in dismissing the amended complaint | Wong reasserted prior arguments that the dismissal was incorrect | PNC maintained dismissal was proper under existing law and record | Held — District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal; no basis to overturn |
| Whether the Court overlooked controlling law or manifest injustice | Wong contended the Court overlooked legal points supporting her claims | PNC contended the motion re-litigates matters already decided | Held — Court found no overlooked controlling decisions or manifest injustice; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995) (standards for granting reconsideration)
- P. Schoenfeld Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Cendant Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.N.J. 2001) (motion for reconsideration may not relitigate old matters)
- In re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 542 F.3d 90 (3d Cir. 2008) (purpose of the automatic stay protects the debtor’s breathing spell)
- In re Siciliano, 13 F.3d 748 (3d Cir. 1994) (automatic stay’s purpose described)
- United States v. Grape, 549 F.3d 591 (3d Cir. 2008) (definition of clear error of law)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings construed liberally)