Two weeks after remanding this collection case to state court, the District Court denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. In a succinct and restrained opinion, the District Court explained why its application of 28 U.S.C. § 1443’s two-prong test was not “patently ridiculous,” as the defendants labeled it. Slip op. at 2-4.
Judge Rodriguez Pushes Foreclosure Towards Rule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
In this foreclosure litigation, the District Court granted the bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Initially, it rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that their amended complaint—virtually identical to the original version—rendered the motion moot. Slip op. at 3-4. The District Court then addressed the property owners’ causes of action—stock allegations for quiet title and violation of Chapter 12 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code—and detailed the reasons they failed to state a viable claim. Id. at 7-22. The District Court, however, afforded the property owners an opportunity to amend their quiet title claim based on lack of proper notice because their “attention was not drawn to [the specific pleading] deficiency” that grounded dismissal. Id. at 21.
Judge Rodriguez Strikes Much of Plaintiff’s Trial Evidence
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.