### 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

Appeal s 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: 07/10/2017No. 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. P laintiff 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”) am ong 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 assignment s. The district court granted Argent’s and Wells Fargo’s motion s to dismiss
and granted Citi’s motion for judg ment on the pleadings because plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the assignment of her mortgage based on alleged
violations of the PSA. The di str ict 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 f or newly discovered evidence and w ill 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 t o 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 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 16-60295 Document: 00514065231 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2017No. 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 di strict court’s ruling and consequently has not shown that the evidence is “new ly 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 reco rd, we
A FFIRM for essentially the reasons stated by the district court. Case: 16-60295 Document: 00514065231 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2017