The Bank of New York Mellon FKA The Bank of New York, as Successor Trustee v. Johnson et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
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,
JOHN WAYNE JOHNSON
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.
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).
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.
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?