Lin Rountree v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 19a0121n.06
    Case No. 18-1529
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    Mar 14, 2019
    LIN ROUNTREE,                                      )                    DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
    )
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                        )
    )       ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    v.                                                 )       STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
    )       THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
    NATIONSTAR    MORTGAGE,  LLC;                      )       MICHIGAN
    FEDERAL   NATIONAL  MORTGAGE                       )
    ASSOCIATION,                                       )
    )
    Defendants-Appellees.                       )
    BEFORE: BATCHELDER, SUTTON, DONALD, Circuit Judges.
    BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. The district court ordered the parties in
    the underlying case to engage in mediation. Before mediation completed or a settlement was
    reached, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff
    now appeals, arguing only that the district court erred by dismissing the case prior to the
    completion of court-ordered mediation. Had the district court known that mediation was not
    complete, the outcome would have been different, according to the plaintiff. We disagree, as his
    position has no basis in the law or the facts. The district court was well within its authority to
    grant the pending motion to dismiss while the parties were engaged in negotiating a settlement;
    Case No. 18-1529, Rountree v. Nationstar
    moreover, the district court made clear it was aware of the status of the ongoing mediation
    proceedings when it granted the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
    I. BACKGROUND
    Plaintiff Lin Rountree filed a complaint against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC and
    Federal National Mortgage Association on or about May 16, 2017,1 in the Circuit Court for the
    County of Oakland, Michigan. Defendants removed the case to federal district court on June 15.
    Two months later, Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The district court
    granted Plaintiff’s request, and also ordered Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the
    complaint. Defendants complied, filing a motion to dismiss the complaint on August 24.
    Four days later, and after holding a hearing on the pending temporary restraining order, the
    district court entered an order requiring the parties to mediate. Nowhere in that order did the
    district court state that it would hold the briefing or a ruling on the motion to dismiss in abeyance
    pending resolution of mediation. To the contrary, the district court explained that it would be
    considering the briefing on the motion to dismiss as mediation continued:
    Defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending, and Plaintiff’s response is not
    due until after the current expiration of the [temporary restraining order]. The
    briefing will assist the Court in determining Plaintiff’s likelihood to succeed on the
    merits. In light of the necessary briefing and the parties’ seeming willingness to
    seek a practical and cost-efficient resolution, the Court will briefly extend the
    [temporary restraining order] and, in the meantime, order the parties to mediate.
    Plaintiff filed his response to the motion to dismiss on September 7. Four days later—
    while the mediation process was still ongoing—the district court granted the motion to dismiss the
    complaint for failure to state a claim, and entered judgment in favor of Defendants.
    1
    All dates refer to the year 2017 unless otherwise noted.
    -2-
    Case No. 18-1529, Rountree v. Nationstar
    Plaintiff filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the order on the motion to dismiss,
    requesting the district court to reconsider its ruling because the parties had not completed their
    mediation and settlement negotiations. Plaintiff did not raise a single substantive issue with the
    order on the motion to dismiss; instead, according to Plaintiff, the case would have been disposed
    of “different[ly]” had the district court known that the mediation and settlement discussions were
    continuing. Plaintiff also complained that granting the motion to dismiss made it “extremely
    unlikely that Defendants will attempt to settle the case.” The district court denied the motion for
    reconsideration, noting that it had “granted the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in its
    opinion and with full awareness that the parties had commenced settlement and that the parties
    were allegedly still ‘in mediation and settlement discussions with the Court-appointed Mediator.’
    [citing Plaintiff’s briefing from the motion to dismiss].” Plaintiff filed a timely appeal.
    II. ANALYSIS
    On appeal, Plaintiff’s only contention is that the district court erred by granting the motion
    to dismiss (and denying his motion for reconsideration) while mediation and settlement
    discussions were ongoing. This request boils down to the district court’s management of its
    docket. “The court of appeals will not interfere with the trial court’s control of its docket except
    upon the clear showing that the procedures have resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the
    complaining litigant.” Jones v. Northcoast Behavioral Healthcare Sys., 84 F. App’x 597, 599,
    
    2003 WL 23140062
     (6th Cir. 2003) (citing In re Air Crash Disaster, 
    86 F.3d 498
    , 516 (6th Cir.
    1996)). Plaintiff has not made this showing. First, he has never argued that the substantive ruling
    on the motion to dismiss was incorrect. See Reply Br. at 5 (refusing to respond to Appellee’s
    arguments on the merits of the motion to dismiss). As such, he has not demonstrated that the
    district court’s ruling resulted in any actual or substantial prejudice. Second, Plaintiff points to no
    -3-
    Case No. 18-1529, Rountree v. Nationstar
    authority demonstrating that court-ordered mediation in any way prevents the district court from
    ruling on a pending motion to dismiss.2 To the extent Plaintiff argues that the district court made
    an error because it was not aware that mediation had not yet concluded, this contention was flatly
    rejected by the district court in its ruling on the motion to reconsider. Last, the district court was
    clear that it would be considering the motion to dismiss while mediation was ongoing, and Plaintiff
    made no request to stay the briefing on that motion. Plaintiff has not made the necessary showing
    required to find error with the district court’s management of its docket.
    III. CONCLUSION
    For the aforementioned reasons, we AFFIRM the district court.
    2
    Indeed, across the entirety of Plaintiff’s briefing before this Court, he cites only five cases, each
    of which concerns the merits of a motion to dismiss, not the district court’s authority to manage
    its docket.
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1529

Filed Date: 3/14/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021