Newrez LLC, et al. v. Gregory Lee, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denies the pro se defendants’ pending motions seeking relief from the court’s order remanding the foreclosure case to state court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). The court finds no basis for reconsideration, relief from judgment, or other action and directs that future motions unrelated to a properly filed notice of appeal be summarily denied. The court also warns defendants that further abuse of the litigation process may result in additional sanctions.

Holdings

1. The defendants were not entitled to Rule 59(e) relief because they identified no intervening change in controlling law, newly discovered evidence previously unavailable, or clear need to correct manifest legal error or prevent manifest injustice.
2. The defendants were not entitled to relief under any invoked provision of Rule 60(b). Their arguments did not establish mistake or excusable neglect, fraud or misconduct affecting the remand order, voidness of the order, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(6).
3. The remand order was not void under Rule 60(b)(4). Rule 52(a)(1) did not require findings of fact and conclusions of law in the circumstances presented, and the court had stated the facts relevant to its jurisdictional conclusions.
4. Because the defendants abused the litigation system through numerous redundant filings in a closed case, the court ordered that future filings be docketed but that the court take no independent action on motions unrelated to a properly filed notice of appeal; such motions would be summarily denied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants were entitled to relief from the remand order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether the defendants were entitled to relief from the remand order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (3), (4), or (6).
3. Whether the remand order was void because the court allegedly failed to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under Rule 52(a)(1).
4. Whether the court should impose a procedural restriction on future filings because of the defendants' serial and redundant post-judgment motions.

Disposition

other