Wiley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 4:2012cv01087 - Document 16 (S.D. Tex. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER entered DENYING 15 MOTION for Reconsideration of 14 Order. Final judgment to be entered by separate order.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Wiley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION LAKNITA WILEY, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-12-1087 ORDER This court previously granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment for the reasons as stated on the record in open court on August 3, 2012. (Docket Entry No. 12). This court thereafter memorialized the ruling in a separate order dated August 7. (Docket Entry No. 14). It did not, however, enter a separate order of final judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. The plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of this court’s order granting summary judgment. (Docket Entry No. 15). A motion to reconsider is appropriately considered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows for “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment [that is] filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Relief under this rule is difficult to obtain. As the Fifth Circuit explains: A Rule 59(e) motion—which asks the court to set aside its previous judgment—“serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Ewans v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 389 F. App’x 383, 389–90 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004)); accord 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ET AL., Dockets.Justia.com FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 124–26 (2d ed. 1995). Such a motion “cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued” or “to argue a case under a new legal theory.” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). The plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is based on the same argument raised in the plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary judgment—namely, that Wells Fargo lacked authority to foreclose. This court considered and rejected that argument for the reasons as stated on the record during the August 3 hearing. The plaintiff is not entitled has demonstrated no manifest errors of law in the court’s previous ruling, let alone any errors of law. The motion for reconsideration, (Docket Entry No. 15), is denied. Final judgment is entered by separate order. SIGNED on August 24, 2012, at Houston, Texas. ______________________________________ Lee H. Rosenthal United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
