Kelly-Fleming v. The City of Selma, Texas, No. SA-10-CV-675-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

The District Court significantly curtailed the plaintiffs’ trial evidence in ruling on the City’s motion to strike.  Although the plaintiffs conceded that nine of their witnesses had not been disclosed, they attempted to salvage seven others, pointing to their document production as sufficient disclosure.  Slip. op. at 1-2.  The document production did not disclose the name, address, and telephone of these individuals as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(A)(i), and the lack of disclosure prejudiced the City by precluding the taking these witness’ depositions; therefore, the District Court struck all 16 witnesses.  Id. at 2.

The District Court did not make any categorical ruling on the disputed exhibits:  With respect to 11 exhibits allegedly not disclosed, the District Court deferred assessment of the four factors outlined in Tex. A&M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2003); it struck three newspaper articles because they were hearsay and likely to cause juror confusion; and it deferred ruling on a tax form where a pre-trial admissibility determination was not practicable.  Slip. op. at 2-3.

Rodriguez v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. SA-12-CV-345-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

In this foreclosure litigation, the District Court denied the property owners’ Rule 59(e) motion seeking reconsideration of its summary judgment.  The owners did not introduce new evidence and, for the most part, the District Court had already thoroughly discussed and rejected their arguments.  Slip op. at 1-2.  The District Court, however, considered their primary argument for reconsideration—whether the bank had adequately proven notice of default by certified mail, as required by the Texas Property Code.  Id. at 2.  The bank’s summary judgment motion relied on the fairly typical officer’s affidavit, which was largely based on his review of records.  Id. at 2.  The District Court concluded that the affidavit measured up to the Fifth Circuit’s standards and that the owners had failed to raise any genuine dispute regarding the officer’s credibility, in part because they had failed to take the officers’ deposition.  Id. at 3-6.

Progresso Partners, L.L.C. v. DeBerry, No. SA-13-CV-921-XR, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2013)(Rodriguez, J.)

This order is another example of a District Court’s sua sponte examination of its subject matter jurisdiction.  The citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of its members.  Slip op. at 1.  The limited liability company plaintiff in this case cited its Delaware origin and Connecticut place of business, but it did not address the citizenship of its members.  Id.  On the defendants’ side, several Texas citizens were parties to the case.  The District Court therefore ordered that the plaintiff “show cause in writing that none of its members are citizens of Texas.”  Id. at 2 (bold omitted).