United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Anderson/Greenwood Division
Beattie B. Ashmore, In His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for Ronnie Gene Wilson and Atlantic Bullion and Coin, Inc., Plaintiff,
Masterpiece Investments, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER AND OPINION
Beattie B. Ashmore (“Plaintiff”), in his capacity
as court-appointed receiver for Ronnie Gene Wilson
(“Wilson”) and Atlantic Bullion and Coin, Inc.
(“AB&C”), filed the instant action against
Defendant Masterpiece Investments, Inc.
(“Defendant”), to recover money from the
Wilson-AB&C Ponzi scheme used to purchase an investment
interest in Defendant. (ECF No. 1.)
matter is before the court as a result of Defendant’s
Motion to Reconsider and to Stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §
362. (ECF No. 19.) For the reasons set forth below, the court
GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider and to Stay.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO PENDING MOTION
is an Oregon corporation. (ECF Nos. 1 at 3 ¶ 12 & 6
at 2 ¶ 13.) On March 24, 2011, and July 20, 2011,
Wilson-AB&C purchased approximately 3 million shares of
Defendant in exchange for $500, 000.00. (Id. at 4
¶¶ 20, 23.)
on his appointment as Receiver tasked with “locating,
managing, recouping, and distributing the assets of the
Wilson-AB&C investment scheme, ” Plaintiff
commenced the instant action against Defendant on March 21,
2014, alleging violations of securities laws in an attempt to
rescind the securities investment and recover the $500,
000.00 in investment capital. (ECF No. 1 at 1 ¶ 1 &
6 ¶ 44-9 ¶ 67.) On August 10, 2015, the parties
allegedly settled the matter. (ECF Nos. 15 at 2, 15-1 &
15-2.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enforce
Settlement on September 28, 2015, which Motion was granted by
Order of the court entered on December 8, 2015 (the
“December Order”). (ECF Nos. 15, 17.)
December 8, 2015, Defendant filed the instant, unopposed
Motion seeking reconsideration of the December Order and to
stay the case. (ECF No. 19.)
court has jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 pursuant to Plaintiff’s allegation that the
Complaint “is so related to the In Re
Receiver, 8:12-CV-2078-JMC case and the underlying
criminal case, United States v. Wilson, et al,
8:12-cr-00320[, ]” cases in which the court has
jurisdiction, “that it forms part of the underlying
case or controversy.” (ECF No. 1 at 1 ¶ 3.)
Additionally, the court has jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claim for violation of securities laws as
it arises under a law of the United States by way of the
Federal Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. §§
77a-77mm. The court may properly hear Plaintiff’s state
law claims for rescission and violation of South Carolina
securities laws based on supplemental jurisdiction since
these claims “are so related to claims in the action
within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the
same case or controversy . . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
Motions to Reconsider
motion for reconsideration is generally raised via Rules 59
and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under Rule
59(e), a court may “alter or amend the judgment if the
movant shows either (1) an intervening change in the
controlling law, (2) new evidence that was not available at
trial, or (3) that there has been a clear error of law or a
manifest injustice.” Robinson v. Wix Filtration
Corp., 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010); see also
Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d
233, 235 (4th Cir. 1994). It is the moving party’s
burden to establish one of these three grounds in order to
obtain relief under Rule 59(e). Loren Data Corp. v. GXS,
Inc., 501 Fed.Appx. 275, 285 (4th Cir. 2012). The
decision whether to reconsider an order pursuant to Rule
59(e) is within the sound discretion of the district court.
Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir.
60(b) allows a party to seek relief from a final civil
judgment in a limited number of circumstances, including: (1)
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect”; (2) “newly discovered evidence”;
(3) “fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or
misconduct”; (4) “the judgment is void”;
(5) “the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged”; and (6) “any other reason that
justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6). Rule
60(b) “does not authorize a motion merely for
reconsideration of a legal issue.” United States v.
Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 312 (4th Cir. 1982).
“Where the motion is nothing more than a request that
the district court change its mind . . . it is not authorized
by Rule 60(b).” Id. at 313.
Motions to Stay
after a debtor files a bankruptcy petition, 11 U.S.C. §
362(a)(4) provides for an automatic stay of any attempts by
creditors to collect on their claims against the debtor.
Id.; see also In re Constr. Supervision Servs.,
Inc., 753 F.3d 124, 126 (4th Cir. 2014). Specifically,
“creditors are automatically stayed from attempting to
collect on claims against the debtor.” In re
Constr., 753 F.3d at 127. “In other words, the
stay protects the bankruptcy estate from ...