Tisdale v. Kaufman and Broad Mortgage Company et al

Filing 26

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
AUSTIN DIVISION

1

17 oc T
17

8 143
C(IJRT

.roc.rEXA.S

CHARLENE ANDREA TISDALE,
Plamtiff,
Case No. A-17-CA-810-SS

-vs-

KAUFMAN AND BROAD MORTGAGE
COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.;
and HUSSAM AL LEHEIBAT,
Defendants.

ORDER
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];

See FED.

R.

CIV. P.

54(b) (giving a district court discretion to

"revise[] at any time before the entry of a judgment" "any order or other decision, however

VI

designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties").
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

omitted).
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.

-2-

Conclusion
Accordingly:
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.

SAJ2?t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-