United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CLARK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
for consideration the Report of the United States Magistrate
Judge in this action, this matter having been referred to the
United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636. Before the court is Plaintiffs Muralidharan Krishnan and
Indiragandhi Kenthapadi's (together,
“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Rule 60 Relief
(“Rule 60 Motion”) (Dkt. #170). Defendant JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) filed a
response (Dkt. #175), Defendant Barrett Daffin Frappier
Truner & Engel, LLP, Grep Bertrand, Deac Caufield, and
Alison Grant (together, the “DTFTE Defendants”)
filed a response (Dkt. #181), and Plaintiffs filed a reply
December 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered the Order and
Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) (Dkt.
#188), which recommended Plaintiffs' Rule 60 Motion (Dkt.
#170) be denied. Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report
(the “Objections”) (Dkt. #192). The Court has
made a de novo review of the Objections and is of
the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge are correct and the Objections are without
merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge.
The Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the
pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' Motions for
Referral to the United States Attorney's Office
(“Motion for Referral”) (Dkt. #172) and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Judicial Transcripts in Other Case
(“Motion for Transcripts”) (Dkt. #173). In the
Report, the Magistrate Judge denied the Motion for Referral
and the Motion for Transcripts (Dkt. #188).
Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge's Order on the
Motion for Referral (Dkt. #172) and Motion for Transcripts
(Dkt. #173) and is of the opinion that the Order is not
clearly erroneous and will therefore not be set aside.
See D2L Ltd. v. Armstrong, 2013 WL 12184297, at *1
(E.D. Tex. June 24, 2013) (“The Court may modify or set
aside a Magistrate Judge's order only if it is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law.”).
pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule
11 Sanctions against Defendants, Counsel, and Law Firms (Dkt.
#191) and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Treyson Brooks
(Dkt. #193) (together, the “Rule 11
Motions”). The BDFTE Defendants filed a response
(Dkt. #194), Chase filed responses (Dkts. #197, #198),
Plaintiffs filed a reply (Dkt. #199), and the BDFTE
Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #200). For the reasons set
forth below, Plaintiffs' Rule 11 Motions are hereby
filed suit to avoid or delay foreclosure of the property
located at 8528 Maltby Court in Plano, Texas (the
“Property”). See Dkt. #117. On August
26, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition and
Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary
Injunction in the 416th Judicial District Court of Collin
County, Texas. See Dkt. #3. Chase removed the action
to this Court on September 16, 2015. Dkt. #1. On February 16,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. #48).
On March 2, 2016, the Court received notice that Plaintiffs
had filed bankruptcy (see Dkt. #57), and on March 7,
2016, the Court stayed the case pending resolution of
Plaintiffs' bankruptcy proceeding. See Dkt. #64.
Plaintiffs' bankruptcy case was resolved, and the stay
was lifted on June 7, 2017. See Dkt. #91. After the
stay was lifted, Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Dkts.
#92, #94). On August 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the Second
Amended Complaint (the “Complaint”) (Dkt. #117),
which is the operative Complaint in this action. As such, the
Court denied the previous motions to dismiss as moot.
See Dkt. #119.
subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #118), which was
granted on December 1, 2017. See Dkt. #163.
Defendants Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP,
Greg Bertrand, Deac Caufield, and Alison Grant (collectively,
the “BDFTE Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss
(Dkt. #120), which was granted on December 1,
2017. See Dkt. #163. Plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. #124) which was
denied. See Dkt. #163.
appealed the final judgment to the Fifth Circuit.
See Dkt. #167. On April 2, 2019, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's ruling and ordered
Plaintiffs to pay to Defendants the costs on appeal. See
Krishnan v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
17-41286, Dkts. #00514897920, #00514897889 (unpublished).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a court, “on
motion and just terms . . . may relieve a party from a final
judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . fraud (whether
previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,
or misconduct by an opposing party [or if] the judgment is
void.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3)-(4). To prevail on a
motion to set aside judgment, a party must show “good
cause.” Meaux Servs., Inc. v. Dao, 160 F.R.D.
563, 564 (E.D. Tex. 1995). “A judgment will not be
reopened if the evidence is merely cumulative or impeaching
and would not have changed the result.” Hesling v.
CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir. 2005)
Court and the Magistrate Judge have previously noted,
Plaintiffs' filings are vague, convoluted, and confusing,
making it difficult for the Court to discern Plaintiffs'
arguments. Additionally, Plaintiffs do not limit the subject
of each filing to a single topic or motion; to the contrary,
Plaintiffs' pending motions re-urge issues previously
raised in their Rule 60 Motion. See Dkts. #171,
#179, #185, #189, #191, #193, #197-99. The Court has reviewed
Plaintiffs' pro se pleadings, attachments, and
the docket in detail and addresses Plaintiffs' objections
OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DKT. #192)
Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge erred in
recommending Plaintiffs' Rule 60 Motion be denied.
See Dkt. #96. Many of Plaintiffs' objections are
related and arise out of the same underlying premise:
Plaintiffs allege fraud occurred because Chase employees
Bubba Fangman (“Fangman”) and Myrtle Cox
(“Cox”) signed in the capacity of “vice
presidents” of Chase, but, on a day-to-day basis during
their employment with Chase, they held other job titles.
See Dkt. #170 at 3; see also Dkt. #192.
Because the documents Fangman and Cox signed were considered
by former Magistrate Judge Don Bush prior to entry of the
earlier report and recommendation (Dkt. #138), Plaintiffs
allege that all attorneys representing Defendants, Defendants
themselves, and Judge Bush, as well as some other individuals
who work with Defendants' attorneys, committed fraud,
which requires that the final judgment be set aside. See
id.; see also Dkts. #171, #179. Plaintiffs
further pursue sanctions motions against several of these
individuals. See Dkts. #191, #193.
Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that the Rule 60 Motion should be denied, as
the “new evidence” Plaintiffs presented is
neither new nor alters the outcome of ...