United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. FITZWATER, SENIOR JUDGE
Karen Armelin Robinson's (“Robinson's”)
motion for “new trial, ” which is properly deemed
a Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment,
a removed action in which Robinson alleges various claims
arising from the attempted foreclosure of her residence. On
August 30, 2019 the court granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment and entered a final judgment in their favor.
Robinson v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 2019 WL
4139399, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2019) (Fitzwater, J.)
(Robinson I). On September 27, 2019 Robinson filed
the instant motion for “new trial” in which she
appears to request that the court reconsider its decision in
Robinson I based on the following argument: the
Appointment of Substitute Trustees was signed by Jaren French
(“French”) as Document Control Officer, claiming
to act for defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
(“SPS”) as attorney-in-fact for defendant
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, in Trust
for the Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust
2005-WL1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL1
(“Deutsche Bank”); plaintiffs' loan does not
appear in the list of agreements to which Deutsche Bank's
limited power of attorney applies; French, attempting to act
for SPS, did not have the authority as attorney-in-fact for
Deutsche Bank to appoint the substitute trustees; and
“the absence of authority for the trustees necessarily
means that the acts of such trustees in signing, posting and
mailing of such notices were of no lawful effect.” P.
Mot. 2 (footnote omitted). Because Robinson raises a new
argument that could have been made before, and because this
argument lacks merit, the court denies Robinson's motion.
for reconsideration have a narrow purpose and are only
appropriate to allow a party to correct manifest errors of
law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”
AMS Staff Leasing, NA, Ltd. v. Associated Contract
Truckmen, Inc., 2005 WL 3148284, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Nov.
21, 2005) (Fitzwater, J.) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted); see Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Cont'l
Cas. Co., 2006 WL 2468712, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25,
2006) (Fitzwater, J.) (stating standard for motion for
reconsideration). The same standard applies to a Rule 59(e)
motion to alter or amend the judgment. See, e.g.,
Schwartz v. Int'l Fed'n of Prof'l & Tech.
Eng'rs, 2008 WL 324133, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 29,
2008) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (holding that court did not commit
manifest error of law or fact, and denying Rule 59(e)
motion), aff'd, 306 Fed.Appx. 168 (5th Cir.
2009). Such motions are “not the proper vehicle for
rehashing old arguments or advancing theories of the case
that could have been presented earlier.” AMS Staff
Leasing, 2005 WL 3148284, at *3 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Robinson contends in her summary judgment response brief that
“[i]t is reasonable for the Court to infer . . . in the
absence of . . . a sufficient power of attorney to support
the execution of the appointment of substitute trustees or
the notices of acceleration and trustee's sale, that the
claim of Deutsche to be mortgagee with respect to the Loan is
unfounded and hence the claim of SPS to be the mortgage
servicer is unfounded, ” she does not explain why the
Limited Power of Attorney included in defendants' summary
judgment appendix is “[in]sufficient.” P. Br. 2.
Nor does she argue, as she does in her motion for new trial,
that the acts of the substitute trustees in signing, posting,
and mailing notices “were of no lawful effect”
due to a defect in the Limited Power of Attorney executed by
Deutsche Bank. P. Mot. 2. In her motion for new trial,
Robinson is now attempting to rely on a new argument that she
should have presented in opposition to defendants'
summary judgment motion. She provides the court with no
reason why this argument, which is based on evidence
contained in defendants' summary judgment appendix, could
not have been raised in response to defendants' summary
judgment motion. Accordingly, the court declines to consider
the court were inclined to consider Robinson's new
argument, it lacks merit. Robinson contends that the Deutsche
Bank Limited Power of Attorney states that it applies only to
the agreements listed on Exhibit A, and that Long Beach
Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-WL1, Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2005-WL1 “does not appear in Exhibit A
to such power of attorney.” P. Mot. 2. The court
disagrees. Page 3 of Exhibit A to the Limited Power of
Attorney specifically refers to Long Beach Mortgage Loan
Trust 2005-WL1 Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2005-WL1.
See Ds. App. 19. Accordingly, Robinson's
argument based on the contention the substitute trustees did
not have the capacity to act as attorney-in-fact for Deutsche
Bank because her Loan was not included in Deutsche Bank's
Limited Power of Attorney is misplaced.
considered Robinson's motion, the court is not persuaded
that its decision in Robinson I granting summary
judgment in favor of defendants is in error. Accordingly,
Robinson's September 27, 2019 motion for new trial is