United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10726

____________

Tim Schoenbauer, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CV-1901 

______________________________

Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Tim Schoenbauer appeals the district court’s 

denial of his motion for reconsideration of an order denying entry of default 

judgment. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM. 

I. Background 

This case arises from the attempted foreclosure of Schoenbauer’s 

property located at 9364 Forest Hills Boulevard, Dallas, Texas. On June 29, 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 15, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10726 Document: 00516750799 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2023
No. 22-10726

2

2020, Schoenbauer, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant-Appellee Deutsche 

Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), in Texas state court. 

Schoenbauer alleged various claims, including breach of contract, fraud, 

promissory estoppel, and violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures 

Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2617. Deutsche Bank removed this action to federal 

court on July 17, 2020, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, asserting federal 

question jurisdiction in the alternative.

Beginning on September 1, 2020, Schoenbauer filed four separate 

motions for entry of default judgment against Deutsche Bank. Each of those

motions was denied because Schoenbauer failed to comply with the 

requirements of Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For 

example, Schoenbauer had not first requested entry of default and had not 

demonstrated that Deutsche Bank failed to plead or otherwise defend the 

lawsuit. Schoenbauer repeatedly claimed that he had properly served 

Deutsche Bank by personally dropping off copies of his complaint at 

Deutsche Bank’s attorneys’ office. The magistrate judge, however, rejected 

this contention because Schoenbauer’s personal attempt at service did not 

comply with Rule 4(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 

magistrate judge also considered the effect of Rule 81(c) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, holding that Deutsche Bank was not required to file an 

answer because it had never been properly served. 

On two separate occasions, the magistrate judge ordered Schoenbauer 

to show cause why his case should not be dismissed, either by filing a valid 

return of service or by stating, in writing, why proper service could not be 

made. Schoenbauer did not comply with this order and instead moved for 

entry of default judgment, contending that Deutsche Bank’s removal of the 

lawsuit constituted a waiver of service. The magistrate judge rejected this 

argument, explaining that a notice of removal is not a general appearance 

Case: 22-10726 Document: 00516750799 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2023
No. 22-10726

3

under Texas law and that Schoenbauer had not demonstrated that Deutsche 

Bank waived service.

Schoenbauer then proceeded to file three motions for rehearing, and 

the magistrate judge recommended that these motions be denied. On 

December 27, 2021, the district court adopted those findings, conclusions, 

and recommendations, and dismissed all of Schoenbauer’s claims. In 

response, Schoenbauer filed a “motion for judgment,” which the magistrate 

judge construed as a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The 

magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied because 

Schoenbauer had not met the requirements of Rule 59(e). The district court 

adopted those recommendations on August 3, 2022, and this appeal 

followed. 

II. Law and Analysis

Rule 59(e) allows a party to “alter or amend a judgment.” FED. R. 

CIV. P. 59(e). “Rule 59(e) motions ‘are for the narrow purpose of 

correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered 

evidence.’” Faciane v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 931 F.3d 412, 423 

(5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th 

Cir. 2004). District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether 

to reopen a case under Rule 59(e).” Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. The Banning Co., 

6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, “reconsideration of a judgment 

after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” 

Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.

We review the denial of Schoenbauer’s Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of 

discretion. See Advocare Int'l LP v. Horizon Lab'ys, Inc., 524 F.3d 679, 690–91 

(5th Cir. 2008); Matter of Life Partners Holdings, Inc., 926 F.3d 103, 128 (5th 

Cir. 2019). Relief under Rule 59(e) may issue only if the movant 

Case: 22-10726 Document: 00516750799 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/15/2023
No. 22-10726

4

demonstrates “a manifest error of law or fact or ... newly discovered 

evidence.” Id.

There are a dizzying number of pleadings in this case, due in part to

Schoenbauer’s pro se status. The district court carefully considered and 

responded each of these pleadings, providing ample opportunities for 

Schoenbauer to request different forms of relief and to prove that he had 

properly served Deutsche Bank in this lawsuit. Instead, Schoenbauerfiled the 

same improper motions multiple times, while reasserting the same unavailing 

arguments. In his “motion for judgment,” which the district court properly 

construed as a motion for reconsideration, Schonebauer failed to identify a 

manifest error of law or newly discovered evidence. Instead, he re-urged the 

same unavailing arguments. Rule 59(e) motions “do[ ] not allow a party to 

revive and initiate further proceedings in a dismissed lawsuit,” which is what 

Schoenbauer appears to be doing here. Def. Distributed v. United States Dep’t 

of State, 947 F.3d 870, 873 (5th Cir. 2020). 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

Case: 22-10726 Document: 00516750799 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/15/2023