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).
Judge Ezra Dismisses Section 1983 Supervisory Liability Claims under Rule 12(b)(6)
Tipps v. McGraw, No. SA-12-CV-761-DAE, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2013)(Ezra, J.)
The District Court dismissed supervisory liability claims under Rule 12(b)(6) in this civil rights case stemming from an Austin woman’s arrest on subsequently dismissed charges. The Fifth Circuit requires specific instances of a subordinate’s civil rights violations to plead a viable claim for section 1983 supervisory liability under section 1983. Slip op. at 12. Because the allegations against the DPS troopers lacked these specifics, the District Court dismissed the section 1983 claims against them, but afforded the plaintiff an opportunity to join the troopers later if developments in discovery warranted. Id. The District Court also dismissed the Austin plaintiff’s common law claims, concluding they were barred by the statutory protection for government employees acting within the scope of their employment. Id. at 12-13 (applying Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f)).
Judge Ezra Disposes of Stock Reconsideration Request in Foreclosure Case
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.