Court Opinion

ID: 9394654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 00:00:45.821433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.483984
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10726         Document: 00516750799             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                        No. 22-10726
                                      ____________                                      FILED
                                                                                      May 15, 2023
   Tim Schoenbauer,                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk
                                                                     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.
Case: 22-10726      Document: 00516750799           Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                     No. 22-10726

   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

                                               2
Case: 22-10726      Document: 00516750799          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10726

   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

                                             3
Case: 22-10726      Document: 00516750799          Page: 4   Date Filed: 05/15/2023

                                    No. 22-10726

   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, Schoenbauer filed 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.

                                             4