Tisdale v. Kaufman and Broad Mortgage Company et al
ORDER DISMISSING 23 Second Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (ml)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
17 oc T
CHARLENE ANDREA TISDALE,
Case No. A-17-CA-810-SS
KAUFMAN AND BROAD MORTGAGE
COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
and HUSSAM AL LEHEIBAT,
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and
specifically Plaintiff's Second Motion to Remand or, in the Alternative, Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction [#23]. Having considered the documents, the governing law, and the file as a whole, the
Court now enters the following opinion and order.
After denying Plaintiff's first motion to remand, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice
with respect to all Defendants because the undisputed pleadings established Plaintiff had no viable
cause of action as a matter of law. Order of Oct. 4, 2017 [#21]; Order of Dismissal of Oct. 4, 2017
[#22]. Plaintiff now files a second motion to remand, again challenging this Court's jurisdiction.
The Court construes Plaintiff's second motion for remand as a Rule 54(b) motion because it
reasserts the same arguments for remand previously made to the Court. Compare Mot. Remand [#8]
with Second Mot. Remand [#23];
54(b) (giving a district court discretion to
"revise at any time before the entry of a judgment" "any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
Although the precise standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) is
unclear, whether to grant such a motion rests within the discretion of the court.
[a]nd the standard
would appear to be less exacting than that imposed by Rules 59 and 60." Cantwell Family Tr. (1998)
& CantwellHoldings, Ltd. v. Hyten, No. A-i 5-CA-41 4-SS, 2016 WL 1610610 at *2 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
20, 2016) (citing Dos Santos v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Dist., 651 F. Supp. 2d 550, 553 (N.D.
Tex. 2009)). In examining a Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider, however, "considerations similar to
those under Rules 59 and 60 inform the Court's analysis." Id. In particular, a Court considers
"whether the movant is attempting to rehash its previously made arguments or is attempting to raise
an argument for the first time without justification.. . ." Dos Santos, 651 F. Supp. 2d at 553 (citations
In its prior order, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion to remand because the Court possessed
federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims asserted under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
15 U.S.C. § 1601.
Order of Oct. 4, 2017 [#21J at 5. Furthermore, the Court had supplemental
jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Id. In filing a second motion for remand, Plaintiff
only attempt to rehash the arguments she previously made. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration
presents no argument or authority warranting reconsideration of the Court's prior order denying
remand and granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Court finds reconsideration is not
proper and dismisses Plaintiff's second motion for remand.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Charlene Andrea Tisdale's Second Motion to Remand
or, in the Alternative, Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [#23] is DISMISSED.
SIGNED this the ____th 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?