Rodriguez v. Bank of America, No. SA-12-CV-905-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2013)(Ezra, J.)

The District Court denied the motion for new trial in this foreclosure case, concluding that (a) Rule 59(e) was not a vehicle for “rehashing” evidence and theories, (b) “new arguments” were likewise “improper subjects” of a motion for reconsideration, (c) several of the property owner’s arguments were cut and pasted from other cases decided on inapplicable facts, and (d) the property owner failed to demonstrate any error in dismissal.  Slip op. at 4-9.  The District Court nevertheless denied the bank’s motion for sanctions, although the matter was “a close call.”  Id. at 12.  The District Court cautioned counsel that he could not “continue to prosecute charges of fraud and forgery in connection with a mortgage assignment predicated solely on alleged evidence from ‘robosigning databases’ because such claims are frivolous” in the wake of the Fifth Circuit’s recent decisions.  Id. at 13.