United States of America v. Cobos et al
Filing
77
Memorandum Opinion and Order denying 70 Motion for New Trial filed by Antonio Ledezma Cobos. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 4/30/2018) (svc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ANTONIO LEDEZMA COBOS,
ANTONIA LEDEZMA COBOS as next
friend for J.C.B., L.A.C.B., H.K.C.B.,
minors; KAREN COBOS
BALDERRAMA; XOCHITL
BALDERRAMA; SANDRA
WILLIAMS; FRANCISCO DIAZ; and
GUADALUPE ZURITA ORTEGA,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-4924-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Antonio Ledezma Cobos’s (“Defendant”) Motion for New Trial (Doc.
70), filed November 2, 2017. For the reasons herein stated, the court denies Defendant’s Motion
for New Trial (Doc. 70).
Defendant filed a motion for new trial, which is governed by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(a); however, there was no trial in this matter. The Government’s claims against
Defendant were adjudicated by summary judgment. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial is,
therefore, more properly characterized as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule
59(e). See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., et al., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
1997) (motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) is proper motion to contest summary judgment);
Patin v. Allied Signal Inc., 77 F.3d 782, 785 n.1 (5th Cir. 1990) (motion to reconsider entry of
summary judgment properly styled a Rule 59(e) motion).
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) “calls into question the
correctness of a judgment.” Edionwe v. Bailey, 860 F.3d 287, 294 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation
omitted). Such motion “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence.” Marseilles Homeowners Condominium Ass’n Inc. v. Fidelity Nat’l
Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). It may not be used to relitigate
issues that were resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction. Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines
Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989). A Rule 59(e) motion may not raise arguments or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted).
When considering a Rule 59(e) motion to
reconsider, a court may not grant such a motion unless the movant establishes: “(1) the facts
discovered are of such a nature that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the alleged facts
are actually newly discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by proper diligence; and
(3) the facts are not merely cumulative or impeaching.” Infusion Res., Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351
F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th Cir. 2003). “Relief under Rule 59(e) is also appropriate when there has been
an intervening change in the controlling law.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563,
567 (5th Cir. 2003).
District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion
to alter a judgment.” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995). In exercising this
discretion, a district court must “strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the
need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Id. With this balance in mind, the Fifth
Circuit has observed that Rule 59(e) “favor[s] the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.”
Southern Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). Stated
another way, “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations
omitted).
On October 5, 2017, the court granted the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment
and entered judgment in favor of the Government (Doc. 67). Defendant has now moved for a new
trial, asserting that he is taking full responsibility of his tax debt owed to the United States, in an
attempt to cancel the order to sale the property located at 7128 Hadley Drive, Dallas, Texas 75217.
Defendant attached a “Form 9465 Installment Agreement Request” to the motion.
The Government opposes the motion. The Government contends that Defendant’s motion
is not a motion for new trial but instead a “settlement proposal.” The court agrees. Although
Defendant was properly served, he failed to respond to the Government’s Complaint. Further,
Defendant failed to respond to the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant’s
motion for a new trial is an improper attempt to settle tax liabilities that were resolved to his
dissatisfaction. Moreover, as noted by the Government, the court does not have the authority to
consider installment agreements. This is a civil action arising under the Internal Revenue Service’s
laws because the United States, through the Department of Justice, filed this suit in an effort to
collect Defendant’s tax debts pursuant to §§ 7401 and 7403 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Accordingly, only “the Attorney General or his delegate may compromise any such case after
reference to the Department of Justice for prosecution or defense.” 26 U.S.C. § 7122(a).
For the reasons stated herein, the court determines that Defendant has failed to establish a
manifest error of law or fact, and failed to present any newly discovered evidence. Further, he has
not shown that there has been an intervening change in the controlling law. Even if such basis
existed, the court has no authority to entertain Defendant’s motion. Accordingly, there is no basis
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
for the court to modify its earlier ruling. The court, therefore, denies Defendant’s Motion for New
Trial.
It is so ordered this 30th day of April, 2018.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4
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?