Carlisle v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA

Filing 20

ORDER entered DENIED 18 MOTION for New Trial.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
OTIS CARLISLE, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-2849

ORDER
In this mortgage-foreclosure suit, this court previously concluded that three of the plaintiff’s
four claims were moot and that the fourth lacked legal merit. The court therefore granted the
defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered final judgment for the defendant. (Docket Entry Nos.
16–17). The plaintiff has filed a motion for new trial. (Docket Entry No. 18). The basis for the
motion is that, when the court granted the motion to dismiss and entered final judgment for the
defendant, “[t]he parties were working on a resolution of the claims at the time the Court dismissed
the Plaintiff’s claims and thus, Plaintiff never had the opportunity to present evidence in support of
his claims.” (Id., ¶ 6). The defendant opposes the motion. (Docket Entry No. 19).
The plaintiff’s argument is unavailing. This court previously stayed the case until February
27, 2012 to allow the parties to pursue settlement discussions. In the event that settlement
discussions were not fruitful, the court gave the plaintiff until February 29 to respond to the motion
to dismiss. (Docket Entry No. 11). The parties were not able to reach a settlement. The parties did
not ask the court to extend the stay so that they could continue pursuing a possible settlement.
Instead, they finished briefing the motion to dismiss. (Docket Entry Nos. 13–14). The court

therefore properly ruled on the motion to dismiss. Moreover, that the “Plaintiff never had the
opportunity to present evidence in support of his claims” is irrelevant given the case’s procedural
posture. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, not a motion for summary judgment. So the issue
before the court was whether, taking all nonconclusory allegations as true, the plaintiff had stated
a claim upon which relief could be granted—regardless of the evidence that the plaintiff could
present in support of that claim.
The plaintiff’s motion for new trial, (Docket Entry No. 18), is denied.
SIGNED on April 23, 2012, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge

2