United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Lindsay United States District Judge
the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial (Doc. 38),
filed August 28, 2017. For the reasons herein stated, the
court denies Plaintiffs' Motion for New
Trial (Doc. 38).
Motion for New Trial is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a);
however, there was no trial in this matter. Plaintiffs'
claims against the Defendant were adjudicated by motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial is, therefore, more
properly characterized as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e). See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co.
v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997)
(motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) is proper motion
to contest summary judgment); Patin v. Allied Signal
Inc., 77 F.3d 782, 785 n.1 (5th Cir. 1990) (motion to
reconsider entry of summary judgment properly styled a Rule
59(e) motion); Smither v. Ditech Fin., L.L.C., 681
Fed.Appx. 347, 350 n.4, 2017 WL 958314 (5th Cir. 2017) (per
curiam) (construing motion for new trial under Rule 59(e) in
upholding district court's order granting mortagage
holder's motion to dismiss).
for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment must clearly
establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present newly discovered evidence.” Simon v. United
States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citations
omitted). Such motions may not be used to relitigate issues
that were resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.
Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d
285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989). A Rule 59 motion may not be used to
relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence
that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.
See generally 11 C. WRIGHT, A. MILLER & M. KANE
§ 2810.1 at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995); see also
Simon, 891 F.2d at 1159. When considering a Rule 59(e)
motion to reconsider, a court may not grant such a motion
unless the movant establishes: “(1) the facts
discovered are of such a nature that they would probably
change the outcome; (2) the alleged facts are actually newly
discovered and could not have been discovered earlier by
proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely cumulative
or impeaching.” Infusion Resources, Inc. v.
Minimed, Inc., 351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th Cir. 2003).
District courts have “considerable discretion in
deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to alter a
judgment.” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921
(5th Cir. 1995). In exercising this discretion, a district
court must “strike the proper balance between the need
for finality and the need to render just decisions on the
basis of all the facts.” Id. With this balance
in mind, the Fifth Circuit has observed that Rule 59(e)
“favor[s] the denial of motions to alter or amend a
judgment.” Southern Constructors Group, Inc. v.
Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).
motion is an improper attempt to relitigate the issue of
whether it was appropriate for the magistrate judge to take
judicial notice of information regarding World Savings Bank,
FSB and its institutional history that is posted on the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's
(“FDIC”) website in determining whether Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is the successor-in-interest to World
Savings Bank, FSB, the original lender. The court previously
decided this issue in Defendant's favor when it accepted
the magistrate judge's findings and recommendation and
overruled Plaintiffs objections.
the Fifth Circuit has previously taken judicial notice of
publicly available information on governmental websites.
See Swindol v. Aurora Flight Sci. Corp., 805 F.3d
516, 518-19 & n.2 (5th Cir. 2015) (taking judicial notice
of public records available on state government website in
determining the location of a party's principal place of
business and the location of its corporate officers);
Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, 418 F.3d 453, 457
(5th Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of an entity's
status as the collective bargaining representative based on
public information regarding the entity's history posted
on a governmental agency website); Coleman v.
Dretke, 409 F.3d 665, 667 (5th Cir. 2005) (taking
judicial notice of factual information on a state government
website). The FDIC is an agency of the federal government,
and the information relied on by Defendant regarding World
Savings Bank, FSB and its institutional history is publicly
available on the FDIC's website. The FDIC's website
includes, among other things, information regarding active
and inactive FDIC-insured institutions such as World Savings
Bank, FSB. Accordingly, the accuracy of the information on
the FDIC's website regarding World Savings Bank, FSB and
its institutional history cannot reasonably be questioned,
and it was appropriate for the magistrate judge to take
judicial notice of this information under Federal Rule of
Evidence 201(b)(2) in deciding Defendant's motion to
dismiss. See Swindol, 805 F.3d at 519-20.
Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial (Doc. 38) is, therefore,