Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Yee v. Passline Services, LP

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

April 30, 2018

DOLORES YEE, Plaintiff,
v.
PASSLINE SERVICES, LP, THE ENRLICH LAW FIRM, MILLS ESCROW, and THE PAXSON LAW FIRM, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES

          PHILIP R. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On this day, the Court considered Defendant[1] 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The 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.

         In its 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.

         Reconsider 1, 29. She provided no argument specifically refuting Passline's assertions.

         After 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.

         Because 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 in turn.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Motion to Reconsider

         Rule 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.