Jones v. Wells Fargo et al
Filing
118
ORDER AND REASONS denying 114 Motion to Amend the Court's October 16, 2019 Judgment. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 11/6/19. (ko)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KIM N. JONES
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 17-8712
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
SECTION "F"
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to amend judgment.
For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.
Background
This
Title
VII
employment
discrimination
and
state
law
whistleblower lawsuit arises from a 58-year-old African American
woman’s
claim
that
Wells
Fargo
wrongfully
terminated
her
employment as a home mortgage consultant after 16 months on the
job.
The Court assumes familiarity with its September 23, 2019
Order and Reasons in which it granted the defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and dismissed each of the plaintiff’s claims.
From August 14, 2015 until her termination on December 10, 2016,
Kim Jones worked for Wells Fargo as a mortgage loan officer.
During her employment, she failed to meet the minimum production
1
standards Wells Fargo required of mortgage loan officers.
September
2016,
Wells
Fargo
placed
Jones
on
a
In
performance
improvement plan, which set forth specific requirements she had to
meet to remain employed.
She failed to meet them.
In December
2016, her employment was terminated.
On September 6, 2017, Ms. Jones, pro se, sued Wells Fargo,
Stephen
Cook,
Jamie
Klinnert
(improperly
named
as
Jaime
Kleinhart), and Maurice Williams, alleging that she was fired
because of her whistleblowing, refusing to participate in illegal
activity, engaging in protected activity, and because of race,
sex, and age discrimination. 1 After retaining counsel, Ms. Jones
amended her complaint alleging that she was discriminated against
based on her age, sex, and race; that Wells Fargo retaliated
against her because she reported and refused to participate in
mortgage fraud; and that Wells Fargo failed to pay her timely
earnings and commissions.
Wells Fargo moved for summary relief.
hearing
on
the
motion
several
times,
After continuing the
including
to
allow
the
plaintiff the opportunity to discover certain evidence as ordered
by the magistrate judge, the Court granted the defendant’s motion
1
The plaintiff’s claims against Maurice Williams, Stephen Cook,
and Jamie Klinnert were dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute.
2
for summary judgment.
On October 16, 2019, judgment was entered
in favor of Wells Fargo and against Ms. Jones.
Ms. Jones, pro se,
now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s judgment dismissing her
lawsuit with prejudice.
I.
The
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
recognize motions for reconsideration.
do
not
expressly
Nevertheless, the Court
must consider motions challenging a judgment as either a motion
“to alter or amend” under Rule 59(e) or a motion for “relief from
judgment” under Rule 60(b).
A motion seeking reconsideration or
revision of a district court ruling is analyzed under Rule 59(e),
if it seeks to alter or amend a final judgment, or Rule 54(b), if
it seeks to revise an interlocutory order.
See, e.g., Cabral v.
Brennan, 853 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2017)(determining that the
district court’s erroneous application of the “more exacting” Rule
59(e) standard to a motion granting partial summary judgment was
harmless error given that the appellant was not harmed by the
procedural error).
“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of judgment.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Rule 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment if the
movant establishes a manifest error of law or presents newly
3
discovered evidence.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
It “serve[s] the
narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence,” and it is
“an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
Austin
v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017)(quoting
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)).
“A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.’”
Templet, 367 F.3d at 478 (quoting In re Transtexas
Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Because of the
interest in finality, Rule 59(e) motions may only be granted if
the moving party shows there was a mistake of law or fact or
presents
newly
discovered
evidence
discovered previously. Id. at 478-79.
that
could
not
have
been
Rule 59 motions should not
be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit
evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings.
See id. at 479; Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607
F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010)(“a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest
error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence’
and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should,
have been made before the judgment issued’”)(citing Rosenzweig v.
Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting Simon v.
United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
4
The Court
must balance two important judicial imperatives in deciding a
motion for reconsideration: “(1) the need to bring the litigation
to an end; and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis
of all the facts.”
Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
II.
The
Court
granted
the
defendant’s
motion
for
summary
judgment, dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
Order and Reasons dtd. 9/23/19.
See
A judgment in favor of the
defendant was issued on October 16, 2019.
That same day, the Court
granted the motion to withdraw filed by plaintiff’s counsel.
Five
days later, Ms. Jones, pro se, filed this motion requesting that
the judgment be amended “based on substantive errors found in Wells
Fargo’s filings and data that were overlooked by the court and
establishes a clear error of fact.” The plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion
must be denied.
Rule 59(e) applies because Ms. Jones challenges the Court’s
adverse judgment within 28 days of its entry.
Although the
defendant has failed to submit any opposition papers, the Court
finds that Jones’s motion fails to identify anything that would
persuade the Court that it erred in granting Wells Fargo’s motion
for summary judgment dismissing each of her claims.
Reading
Jones’s Rule 59 motion generously, she fails to identify either a
5
manifest error of law or fact. Nor does she offer any newly
discovered
evidence.
Her
submission
is
part-rehash
counsel’s prior submissions and part-diatribe. 2
of
her
She offers no
citation to the voluminous summary judgment record considered by
the Court, nor does she invoke binding law calling into question
the correctness of the Court’s ruling.
considered
Jones’s
arguments
and
The Court previously
rejected
them.
That
Jones
disagrees with the Court’s disposition of her case is clear.
she
offers
nothing
to
trigger
the
extraordinary
remedy
But
of
reconsideration.
It is difficult to discern precisely which aspects of the
Court’s 40-page Order and Reasons she seeks to amend.
Jones does
not appear to challenge this Court’s finding that she failed to
exhaust any claim for wrongful termination based on her age or for
2
Jones asks the Court to review:
the production reports that Wells never provided, the
ALL WHITE RACE LEAD TEAM FORMED BY WHITE MANAGER STEVE
COOK and right after my complaint and EEOC the WHITE
MANAGER STEVE COOK broke the non-compete guide and took
the ALL WHITE LEAD TEAM CONSISTING OF ALL WHITE HMCS to
Chase Bank having these white employees quit on the same
day 3/15/17, placing the black manager during the
investigation on a PIP as retaliation and shutting down
the entire WELLS FARGO organization in Louisiana
directly after my EEOC and law suit in 60 days Wells
Fargo was gutted and the white employees were sent to
Chase Bank.
6
general mistreatment. 3
(based
on
age,
race,
As for her wrongful termination claims
and
gender),
Jones
does
not
appear
to
challenge Wells Fargo’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for
terminating employment: that she failed to meet minimum production
requirements.
Rather than identifying evidence indicating that
she complied with minimum production requirements, she continues
to concede that she did not; she simply suggests that she was not
as far “in the hole” as the summary judgment record indicated.
She offers no new evidence, nor identifies any record evidence,
that would tend to show (or create a fact issue concerning)
pretext; she still fails to invoke similarly situated individuals
who were younger than her, male, or non-African American and who
failed to meet production standards and yet were treated more
favorably.
Finally, Jones fails to persuade the Court to reconsider
dismissal of her state law claims. She conflates her whistleblower
claim with her discrimination claims, but nevertheless fails to
persuade the Court that record evidence (or new evidence) support
3
Nor does she appear to challenge this Court’s finding that Wells
Fargo additionally demonstrated entitlement to judgment as a
matter of law dismissing the unexhausted age discrimination and
general mistreatment claims.
7
(or create a fact issue concerning) each of the elements of her
whistleblower claim. 4
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to
amend the Court’s October 16, 2019 judgment is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 6, 2019
_____________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Nor does Jones even mention her unpaid commissions or negligence
claims and therefore the Court need not address them.
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?