Aleman v. West Business Solutions, LLC

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING 47 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (aej)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
JANELLE ALEMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
WEST BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,
LLC, d/b/a WEST CUSTOMER
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. SA:13–CV–035–DAE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is a motion filed by Plaintiff Janelle Aleman. (Dkt.
# 47.) Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), the Court finds these matters suitable for
disposition without a hearing. After reviewing the Motions and the supporting
memoranda, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. (Dkt. # 47.)
BACKGROUND
The instant motion involves a lawsuit Janelle Aleman filed against
West Business Solutions, LLC (“West,” or “Defendant”) challenging her
termination from West. The lawsuit challenges her termination on the grounds of
unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq. for complaints about harassment and discrimination. (Dkt. # 1
¶¶ 21–22.)
1

On November 4, 2013, West filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Dkt. # 24.) The Court issued an order on December 4, 2013 granting Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, and specifically finding that Ms. Aleman failed to
allege sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. (Dkt. # 32 at 6.)
On the same day, final judgment was entered in Defendants’ favor. (Dkt. # 33.)
On December 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 34),
which was denied on December 17, 2013. (Dkt. # 35.) On January 6, 2014 and
January 27, 2014, the Court denied Ms. Aleman’s motions for leave to file her
second and third motions for reconsideration. (Dkts. ## 37, 41.) On February 18,
2014, Ms. Aleman filed a notice of her appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. (Dkt. # 42.) On June 9, 2014, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ order
dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was filed with the court. (Dkt. # 46.)
On January 15, 2016, Ms. Aleman filed the instant Pro Se Motion for Extension of
Time on Review By Another Federal Judge. (Dkt. # 47.)
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows a court to grant relief
from a final judgment in certain circumstances:
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3)
fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
2

discharged, it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “The purpose of Rule 60(b) is to balance the principle
of finality of a judgment with the interest of the court in seeing that justice is
done in light of all the facts.” Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632,
638 (5th Cir. 2005). This relief “is considered an extraordinary remedy,”
and “the desire for a judicial process that is predictable mandates caution in
reopening judgments.” In re Pettle, 410 F.3d 189, 191 (5th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1007 (5th Cir. 1998)).
DISCUSSION
It appears that Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time on Review By
Another Federal Judge is effectively a fourth attempt to file a Rule 60(b) motion
for relief from this Court’s final Judgment granting Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and Order dismissing all claims. 1 (Dkt. # 47.) Ms. Aleman
wishes to consolidate her case with the case styled Herminia S. Aleman v. West
Business Solutions, LLC; however, summary judgment was granted in favor of

1

Courts must liberally construe the filings of pro se litigants. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972); Winland v. Quarternamn, 578 F.3d 314, 316 (5th
Cir. 2009) (noting the “well-established precedent requiring that [the court]
construe pro se briefs liberally”). Accordingly, courts hold pro se complaints to
“less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hale v. King,
642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730,
733 (5th Cir. 2002)).
3

Defendant West in the above-mentioned case on August 8, 2014. No. 31, Civ. 5–
13–CV–994 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2014). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed that judgment on April 16, 2015. Aleman v. West Business Solutions,
L.L.C., 599 Fed. App’x 559 (5th Cir. Apr. 16, 2015). Accordingly, consolidation
is not appropriate. Further, Fifth Circuit Rule 42.4, which sets forth applicable
time limits and procedures for parties seeking a clerk’s stay of further
proceedings,2 is inapplicable to the instant proceeding before the Federal District
Court.
Ms. Aleman’s Motion does not allege any new facts supporting
grounds for relief, nor does she suggest any reason why the Court’s prior judgment
is void, as she as she must to raise a successful motion for reconsideration.
Further, Ms. Aleman has not demonstrated that any other conditions exist
justifying the grant of an “extraordinary remedy.”
2

Fifth Circuit Rule 42.4 states:
In acting on a motion under 5th Cir. R. 27.1.3 to stay further
proceedings, the clerk may enter such appeals or agency review
proceedings as dismissed without prejudice to the right of
reinstatement of the appeal within 180 days from the date of
dismissal. Any party desiring reinstatement, or an extension of the
time to seek reinstatement, must notify the clerk in writing within the
time period allowed for reinstatement . . . If the appeal is not
reinstated within the period fixed, the appeal is deemed dismissed
without prejudice. However, an additional period of 180 days from
the date of dismissal will be allowed for applying for relief from a
dismissal with prejudice which resulted from mistake, inadvertence,
or excusable neglect of counsel or a pro se litigant.
4

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time on Review By Another Federal Judge (Dkt. # 47).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, February 3, 2016

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

5