Murungi v. Texas Guaranteed et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying pla's 52 Motion for Reconsideration as set forth in document. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/30/09. (rll, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA JAMES H. MURUNGI VERSUS TEXAS GUARANTEED SALLIE MAE CIVIL ACTION NO: 09-3109 SECTION: R(1)

SUMMARY ORDER Before the Court is plaintiff James H. Murungi's motion for reconsideration of the timeliness of defendants' motions to dismiss. (R. Doc. 52.) Murungi asserts that defendants did not

file timely motions to dismiss after removing this action to federal court, and accordingly their motions should have been denied. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

applicable at the time Murungi's action was removed to this Court, defendants were required to answer or present other defenses within 20 days of removal.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c)(2).

The day of removal is excluded from the computation of this 20 Rule 81(c)(1) currently provides for 21 days, but this 21 day period did not take effect until December 1, 2009.
1

day time period.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1), (3).

Murungi filed a pro se reconventional demand against Sallie Mae and Texas Guaranteed in state court for alleged predatory lending practices. (See R. Doc. 1-3.) The action was removed to (R. Doc.

the Eastern District of Louisiana on March 20, 2009. 1.)

On April 2, 2009 (i.e., 13 calendar days after removal),

Sallie Mae moved the court for an additional 20 days to file responsive pleadings. (R. Doc. 3.) This motion was unopposed On April 9, 2009

and granted on April 6, 2009.

(R. Doc. 8.)

(i.e., 20 calendar days after removal), Texas Guaranteed moved the Court for an additional 20 days to file responsive pleadings. (R. Doc. 9.) 15, 2009. This motion too was unopposed and granted on April On April 13, 2009 (i.e., 13 days after

(R. Doc. 15.)

the Court's April 6, 2009 order), Sallie Mae moved to dismiss Murungi's claims. (R. Doc. 10.) On May 7, 2009 (i.e., 22 days

after the Court's April 13, 2009 order), Texas Guaranteed moved to dismiss Murungi's claims. (R. Doc. 23.) On July 2, 2009,

this Court granted in part and denied in part both defendants' motions to dismiss. (R. Doc. 30.) Murungi did not object to the (See R.

timeliness of defendants' motions in his oppositions. Docs. 20, 25.)

Murungi now seeks reconsideration of the Court's

July 2, 2009 order on grounds that defendants' motions to dismiss were untimely. 2

In accordance with Rule 81(c)(2), Sallie Mae's motion for a 20 day extension to file responsive pleadings was filed within 20 days of removal of this action. In turn, Sallie Mae's motion to

dismiss was filed with 20 days of this Court's order granting the 20 day extension. Accordingly, Sallie Mae's motion to dismiss

was timely filed, and Murungi's motion for reconsideration is DENIED with respect to Sallie Mae. In accordance with Rule 81(c)(2), Texas Guaranteed's motion for a 20 day extension to file responsive pleadings was filed within 20 days of removal of this action. Although, Texas

Guaranteed's motion to dismiss was filed 22 days after this Court's order granting the 20 day extension, the time for objecting to these two extra days has passed. Murungi did not

object to the timeliness of Texas Guarantee's motion to dismiss in his opposition to it, and he has not alleged any prejudice arising from these two extra days. Murungi's motion for

reconsideration is therefore DENIED with respect to Texas Guaranteed. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); Templet v.

HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (A motion to reconsider is "not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order]."); Hetzel v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 50 F.3d 360, 367 (5th Cir. 1995) ("Accepting the 3

motion a day late was clearly within the court's discretion.").

New Orleans, Louisiana, this30th day of December, 2009. __

_________________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4