Tyler v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, et al
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: After carefully reviewing the motion, record, and applicable law, the court denies Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Reconsideration; and denies as moot Plaintiff's 13 Motion to Produce the Note. Considerin g the record in this case, the court certifies that the appeal of this action is not taken in good faith and withdraws Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). In support of this certificati on, the court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report and the court's order accepting the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the foregoing orders, the court concludes that the appeal of this action presents no legal point of arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 8/26/2016) (twd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LOU TYLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
and DEUTSHE BANK,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-1698-L
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12), filed by pro se Plaintiff Lou Tyler
(“Plaintiff”) on August 23, 2016; and Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce the Note (Doc. 13), filed August
23, 2016. After carefully reviewing the motion, record, and applicable law, the court denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12); and denies as moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Produce
the Note (Doc. 13).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. Shepherd v. Internaltional Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). Such
motions are analyzed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147
F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir. 1998). Rule 59(e) governs when a motion for reconsideration is filed
within 28 days of the challenged judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291,
303 (5th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff filed her Motion for Reconsideration seven days after the judgment
was entered in this case on July 19, 2016. Rule 59(e), therefore, applies.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
“Motions for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment must clearly establish either a
manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Simon v. United States,
891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). Such motions 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 motion may not be used to relitigate old matters, raise
arguments, or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See generally
11 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & M. KANE § 2810.1 at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995); see also Simon, 891
F.2d at 1159. 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 Resources, Inc. v. Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (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 Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration challenges the dismissal of her claims and this action
under the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff contends that in dismissing her case without allowing
her to present evidence in support of her claims, she was denied her constitutional right to a “day in
court.” Pl.’s Mot. 1. Plaintiff, therefore, requests that the court reconsider the merits of her claims.
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration also includes a number of general assertions regarding
“Ocwen.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff’s conclusory assertions regarding other mortgage cases and settlements involving
“Ocwen” have no relevance to this case. Moreover, the res judicata issue raised by Plaintiff was
addressed in the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(“Report”) entered in this case by Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on July 19, 2016. In that
Report, the magistrate judge recommended that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants be dismissed
with prejudice as barred by res judicata. Plaintiff could have, but did not file any objections to the
Report within the time allowed. On August 16, 2016, the court determined that the magistrate
judge’s findings and conclusions were correct, and accepted them as those of the court. Further,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not establish either a manifest error of law or fact or
present newly discovered evidence, and instead merely seeks to relitigate matters that could have
been raised before entry of judgment in this case. The court, therefore, concludes that Plaintiff is not
entitled to relief under Rule 59 and denies her Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 12). The court’s
denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration moots her Motion to Produce the Note (Doc. 13),
which the court denies as moot.
Considering the record in this case, the court certifies that the appeal of this action is not
taken in good faith and withdraws Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3);
Fed. R. App. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the court accepts and incorporates by
reference the Report and the court’s order accepting the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197,
202 n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the foregoing orders, the court concludes that the appeal of this
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
action presents no legal point of arguable merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
It is so ordered this 26th day of August, 2016.
_________________________________
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?