Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Johnson

Full title: THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

Date published: Oct 11, 2017

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-00376 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:16-CV-00376

10-11-2017

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR NOVASTAR MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2002-3 NOVASTAR HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-3, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WAYNE JOHNSON Defendant.

MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OPINION AND ORDER

Pending before the Court are Defendant John Wayne Johnson's Motion for New Trial, Doc. 23, and Plaintiff the Bank of New York Mellon fka the Bank of New York, as Successor Trustee for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2002-3 Novastar Home Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-3's ("BNYM") Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial Out of Time, Doc. 24. Having considered Plaintiff's motion and determining it bears merit, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff BNYM's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial, Doc. 24, is GRANTED.

Furthermore, upon review and consideration of Defendant's motion, the response thereto attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Response, Doc. 24, and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant Johnson's Motion for New Trial, Doc. 23, is DENIED.

I. Legal Standard

"A motion to alter or amend judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005).

II. Discussion

Johnson argues he did not have a fair and impartial decision because suit was brought against both him and a co-defendant, GAI IRA Property Tax Advantage, LLC, together. Doc. 23 at 1. However, Johnson does not state a basis for setting aside BNYM's judgment against him.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff BNYM's Motion for Leave to File Response to Defendant's Motion for New Trial, Doc. 24, is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that Defendant Johnson's Motion for New Trial, Doc. 23, is DENIED.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 11th day of October, 2017.

/s/_________

MELINDA HARMON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE