Ferguson et al v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION entered DENYING 13 MOTION for New Trial.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERT WADE FERGUSON and
WENDY THOMPSON FERGUSON,
§
§
Plaintiffs,
§
§
VS.
§
§
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
§
CORP. fka THE BANK OF NEW YORK, et al.,
§
§
Defendants.
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-279
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION
In this foreclosure, the plaintiffs, Robert and Wendy Ferguson, seeks reconsideration of the
court’s June 23, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss.1
(Docket Entry No. 13). The defendant responded. (Docket Entry No. 14). Based on careful review
of the motion and responses, the record, and the applicable law, the court denies the motion, for the
reasons explained below.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
1997) (stating that “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a general motion for
reconsideration”). A motion seeking reconsideration of a judgment is generally considered a motion
to alter or amend under Rule 59(e). T-M Vacuum Products, Inc. v. TAISC, Inc., No. 07–cv–4108,
2008 WL 2785636, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 16, 2008). “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the
correctness of a judgment.’” Templet v. HyrdoChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004)
1
The Ferguson’s motion is styled as a “Motion for New Trial.”
(quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). Such a motion allows a
district court to correct a manifest factual error, to correct a manifest legal error, or to introduce
newly discovered evidence. Id. A motion to reconsider may not be used to relitigate old matters
or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised before the judgment was
entered. 11 CHARLES A. WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE § 2810.1 at 127–28 (2d ed. 1995) (footnotes omitted); see also Templet, 367 F.3d at
479.
The grounds for reconsideration the Fergusons raised in their motion for reconsideration
reassert the same arguments they raised previously. The Fergusons have not pointed to a clear error
of law or fact that would materially affect the court’s analysis or conclusion. Because they do not
present adequate grounds for the relief they seek, their motion for reconsideration, (Docket Entry
No. 13), is denied.
SIGNED on August 12, 2014, at Houston, Texas.
______________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
United States District Judge
2
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?