Mitchell General & Cosmetic Dentistry, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that court communications sent toa spam folder does not constitute excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)
• holding that a Rule 59(e) motion “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” (emphasis added) (internal quotations omitted)
• affirming denial of Rule 60(b) motion where movant claimed court emails were diverted to spam filter
• holding plaintiffs’ failure to respond to motion to dismiss amounted to gross carelessness where “(1) the case had been stayed, so it was not on their list of active cases; (2) counsel mistakenly failed to register with the Court’s [CMECF] system; and (3
• “It is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”
• Party alleged excusable neglect when counsel failed to register with CM/ECF and antivirus software diverted court emails to a spam folder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).