Sundaram v. Flagstar Bank F.S.B. et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered DENYING 19 MOTION to Alter Judgment. (Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
VIVEK SUNDARAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
FLAGSTAR BANK F.S.B. and
FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-0491
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
Vivek Sundaram sued Flagstar Bank and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.,
challenging Flagstar’s right to foreclose on his property. (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. B-1, Original
Pet.). The defendants moved for summary judgment, Sundaram responded, and the defendants
replied. (Docket Entries No. 8, 9, 10). After hearing oral argument on the motion, this court granted
summary judgment for the defendants and entered final judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 14, 15, 17).
On July 27, 2012, Sundaram filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Docket Entry No. 19). The defendants responded. (Docket
Entry No. 20).
Based on the motion and the response; on this court’s prior ruling; and on the applicable law,
Sundaram’s motion is denied, for the reasons explained below.
I.
Background
This case arose from Sundaram’s admitted default on his residential mortgage. Sundaram
sued after an October, 4, 2011 foreclosure sale of the property, asserting claims for wrongful
foreclosure, fraudulent lien, and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) violations.
(Docket Entry No. 1, Ex. B-9, 2d Am. Pet., ¶¶ 33–42). He also sought injunctive relief and a
declaratory judgment that the assignment of the deed of trust was invalid. (Id., ¶¶ 18–32, 46). In
pertinent part, Sundaram argued that Flagstar had no foreclosure right because it failed to provide
proof of ownership. (Id., ¶¶ 26, 28).
The defendants moved for summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 8). They argued, in
relevant part that “Flagstar obtained servicing rights and the Deed of Trust regarding the Note and
Property. See Exhibits A-3 and B-2. The Notice of Assignment of Servicing was even executed by
Plaintiff and the Assignment of the Deed of Trust was recorded in the real property records where
the Property is located. See Exhibits A-3 and B-2 . . . .” (Id., ¶¶ 17–18, 23–24).
In response, Sundaram argued that there was a factual dispute material to determining
whether Flagstar had standing to foreclose because “Sharon Morgan is not the vice-president of
MERS,” and “one month after the purported assignment to Flagstar, Freddie Mac claimed ownership
of Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust.” (Docket Entry No. 9, ¶¶ 3–6, 10–12).
The defendants responded that “the fact that Ms. Morgan was employed by Flagstar is not
evidence that would or could support any contention that she was not authorized to execute the
Assignment attached to Defendants’ Motion as Exhibit B-2.” (Id., ¶¶ 5–8, 11 (citing Docket Entry
No. 8, Ex. A)).
This court granted summary judgment for the defendants because the summary-judgment
record showed no genuine dispute of material fact that Flagstar was the loan servicer and the
noteholder. In his Rule 59(e) motion, Sundaram has advanced the same facts and arguments that
this court found unpersuasive when it granted summary judgment for the defendants.
2
II.
The Applicable Legal Standards
A Rule 59(e) motion “‘calls into question the correctness of a judgment.’” Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d
571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). “Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not
be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been
raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008)
(quoting 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE
AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995)).
“[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.” Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Hous., 607 F.3d 413, 419
(5th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th
Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more
than disagreement with the court’s decision and recapitulation of the same cases and arguments
already considered by the court.” Texaco Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. Smackco, Ltd., No. Civ. A.
98–2293, 1999 WL 539548, at *1 (E.D. La. July 26, 1999) (citing Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v.
Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F. Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995)); see also Joe v. Minn. Life Ins. Co.,
272 F. Supp. 2d 603, 604 (S.D. Miss. 2003) (“‘Whatever may be the purpose of Rule 59(e), it should
not be supposed that it is intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the
judge.’” (quoting Atkins v. Marathon LeTourneau Co., 130 F.R.D. 625, 626 (S.D. Miss. 1990))).
3
III.
Analysis
In his motion, Sundaram does not claim newly discovered evidence. Nor does he raise an
argument that could not have been raised before the judgment issued. Sundaram’s Rule 59(e)
motion falls under the category of motions intended to correct a manifest error of law or fact. The
evidence he relies on was included in the summary-judgment record. The court explained in its oral
ruling that its grant of summary judgment for the defendants was based on a review of all the
summary-judgment evidence. In his summary-judgment response, and through his counsel at the
hearing, Sundaram advanced the same arguments now raised in his Rule 59(e) motion. This court
considered and rejected these arguments in light of well-settled law on mortgage assignments that
made the fact issues urged by Sundaram immaterial. In his Rule 59(e) motion, Sundaram does not
challenge this legal conclusion. This court has already considered and rejected the arguments
Sundram’s motion raises. Sundaram’s motion does not justify relief under Rule 59(e). See, e.g.,
Texaco, 1999 WL 53948, at *1 (“A party seeking reconsideration must show more than
disagreement with the court’s decision and recapitulation of the same cases and arguments already
considered by the court.”).
IV.
Conclusion
Sundaram’s motion to alter or amend the judgment, (Docket Entry No. 19), is denied.
SIGNED on October 26, 2012, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
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?