United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR
R. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
day, the Court considered Defendant Passline Services, LPs
[hereinafter "Passline"] "Motion for
Attorney's Fees" (ECF No. 17), on February 5, 2018;
Plaintiff Dolores Yee's [hereinafter "Yee"]
"Motion to Reinstate and Set Aside Default
Judgment/Order, Attorney Fees" (ECF No. 22) [hereinafter
"Motion to Reconsider"], filed February 20, 2018;
Passline's "Response" to Yee's Motion to
Reconsider (ECF No. 23, filed on February 23, 2018; and
Yee's "Objections to Defendant Counsel [sic] Paxson
Responses" (ECF No. 24) [hereinafter "Reply"],
in the above-captioned cause. After due consideration, the
Court is of the opinion that both motions should be denied.
motions under consideration follow the Court's January
22, 2018 "Order Granting Motion to Remand and Motions to
Dismiss" (ECF No. 11) [hereinafter "Order"].
In that Order, the Court remanded this matter back to State
court and dismissed two defendants that Yee added to this
cause that were not present in the State suit. Order 11.
Motion for Attorney's Fees, Passline seeks fees because
it claims Yee's removal was objectively unreasonable,
which often warrants an award of such fees. Mot.
Attorney's Fees 2. Passline also argues that
"Yee's Notice of removal was a transparent attempt
to stall the writ of possession and allow her to stay in
possession" of a piece of property. Id. Yee has
not responded directly to the Motion for Attorney's Fees,
except insofar as her Motion to Reconsider includes a vague
request to "set aside" or "stop"
attorney's fees. See Mot.
1, 29. She provided no argument specifically refuting
failing to respond to Passline's Motion for
Attorney's Fees, Yee filed her Motion to Reconsider. Like
Yee's previous written pleadings, it is difficult to
discern with precision the relief Yee requests in her Motion
to Reconsider. The full title of the Motion is "Motion
to Reinstate and Set Aside Default Judgment/Order, Attorney
Fees And Writ Pursuant Unlawful [sic] Possession executed
11/19/18 by Justice of the Peacel [sic]." In her Motion
to Reconsider, Yee appears to request an evidentiary hearing,
discusses the factors for a preliminary injunction, and
requests that the Court "stay execution" of the
State-court judgment. Mot. Reconsider 1-6. Yee further claims
that she never received notice of Passline's initial
motion to remand, or any of the other Defendants' motions
to dismiss. Id. at 8.
of the numerous claims for relief made in her Motion, the
exact basis for Yee's challenge to the Court's Order
is unclear. However, Yee mentions Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60 multiple times in the Motion. Rule 60(b) allows
for reconsideration of a final order under certain
circumstances that the Court will describe further infra.
Because this is the clearest basis for her challenge to the
Court's remand order and dismissal of certain defendants,
the Court will construe Yee's Motion as a Motion to
Reconsider pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
("A document filed pro se is 'to be liberally
construed[.]'"). The Court will address the the
Motion to Reconsider and the Motion for Attorney's Fees
Motion to Reconsider
60(b) provides that the Court may . . . relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(3) ... misconduct by an opposing party;. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies ...