IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-60295

Summary Calendar

EVA ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, L.L.C.; 

CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INCORPORATED, 

Defendants - Appellees

---------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated with 16-60581

EVA ANDERSON, 

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; ARGENT MORTGAGE COMPANY, L.L.C.; 

DAVID E. SANTA; CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING, INCORPORATED, 

Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court 

of the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:15-CV-88

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 10, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-60295 Document: 00514065231 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2017
No. 16-60295 cons. w/No. 16-60581

2

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

On appeal Plaintiff-Appellant raises the same issues that the district 

court found were foreclosed by Fifth Circuit precedent. Plaintiff claims that 

Wells Fargo, the current owner of her mortgage, had no right to foreclose on 

her mortgage because of a fraudulent assignment in the chain of ownership. 

Plaintiff contends that the assignment violated a Pooling and Services 

Agreement (“PSA”) among parties in the chain of ownership, including 

Defendants Wells Fargo, Argent Mortgage Company, and Citi Residential 

Lending. For the first time on appeal, she also asserts that Article 9 of the 

Uniform Commercial Code forbids and voids these assignments.

The district court granted Argent’s and Wells Fargo’s motions to dismiss 

and granted Citi’s motion for judgment on the pleadings because plaintiff lacks 

standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage based on alleged 

violations of the PSA. The district court also denied plaintiff’s motion for leave 

to amend her complaint and motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly 

discovered evidence. 

We find no reason to amend for newly discovered evidence and will not 

consider plaintiff’s UCC argument for the first time on appeal. The Offshore 

Drilling Co. v. Gulf Copper & Mfg. Corp., 604 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2010). 

This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion to amend and denial 

of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Stem v. Gomez, 813 F.3d 

205, 216 (5th Cir. 2016); Weber v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 199 F.3d 270, 276 (5th 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 16-60295 Document: 00514065231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2017
No. 16-60295 cons. w/No. 16-60581

3

Cir. 2000). Plaintiff’s amendment is futile because her amended complaint 

would likewise be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to include new facts 

that would alter the district court’s jurisdictional analysis. Marucci Sports, 

L.L.C. v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 751 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir. 2014) 

(“Denying a motion to amend is not an abuse of discretion if allowing an 

amendment would be futile.”); Stem, 813 F.3d at 216. Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration was also properly denied because she failed to demonstrate

that the evidence was unavailable prior to the district court’s ruling and 

consequently has not shown that the evidence is “newly discovered.” Matador 

Petroleum Corp. v. St. Paul Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 174 F.3d 653, 658 n.1 (5th 

Cir. 1999). Having reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record, we 

AFFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

 Case: 16-60295 Document: 00514065231 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2017