The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York, as Successor Trustee v. Johnson et al

Filing 25

ORDER denying 23 MOTION for New Trial, granting 24 MOTION for Leave to File Response to Motion for New Trial Out of Time (Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(jdav, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS
SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING
TRUST, SERIES 2002-3 NOVASTAR HOME
EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-3,
Plaintiff,
VS.
JOHN WAYNE JOHNSON
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

October 13, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-00376

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant John Wayne Johnson’s Motion for New Trial,
Doc. 23, and Plaintiff the Bank of New York Mellon fka the Bank of New York, as Successor
Trustee for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust,
Series 2002-3 Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-3’s
(“BNYM”) Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant’s Motion for New Trial Out of
Time, Doc. 24. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion and determining it bears merit, the Court
hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff BNYM’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant’s
Motion for New Trial, Doc. 24, is GRANTED.
Furthermore, upon review and consideration of Defendant’s motion, the response thereto
attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response, Doc. 24, and the relevant
legal authority, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant Johnson’s Motion for New Trial, Doc.
23, is DENIED.
1/2

I. Legal Standard
“A motion to alter or amend judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of
law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763
(5th Cir. 2005).
II. Discussion
Johnson argues he did not have a fair and impartial decision because suit was brought
against both him and a co-defendant, GAI IRA Property Tax Advantage, LLC, together. Doc. 23
at 1. However, Johnson does not state a basis for setting aside BNYM’s judgment against him.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff BNYM’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant’s
Motion for New Trial, Doc. 24, is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Defendant Johnson’s Motion for New Trial, Doc. 23, is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 11th day of October, 2017.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2