Alcorta Express Trust et al v. Gold Quest Group LLC Mortgage et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Alcorta Express Trust d/b/a 	§
Aurora Maria Sarmiento, and 	§
Aurora Sarmiento as Settlor of 	§
the Alcorta Express Trust, 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action H-24-3961
§
Gold Quest Group LLC, et al. 	§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate
judge for all pretrial purposes. ECF No. 34. Pending before the
court is pro se Plaintiff Aurora Sarmiento’s Motion for Relief from
Final Judgment Persuant [sic] to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (4)
and (6). ECF No. 63. The court recommends that the motion be
DENIED.
In a November 3, 2025 Memorandum and Recommendation,
the court recommended that this case be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 60. The court also denied
Plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. Id. at 8. Plaintiff did not
file 	any 	objections. 	The 	district 	judge 	adopted 	the
recommendation, 	ECF 	No. 	61, 	and 	entered 	final 	judgment
dismissing the case without prejudice, ECF No. 62.
In the pending motion, Plaintiff moves for relief from the
final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1),
which addresses instances when a final judgment is the result of
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Plaintiff
argues that this provision applies because dismissal occurred
when there was a pending motion to amend the complaint. ECF
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 01, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03961 Document 64 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
No. 63 at 2–3. That is inaccurate. The court denied leave to amend
before Judge Hanks dismissed the case.
Plaintiff argues next that relief from the final judgment is
warranted under Rule 60(b)(4), which applies when the judgment
is void. Plaintiff takes the position that the judgment is void
because she did not have an opportunity to cure any jurisdictional
defects, which raises due process concerns. ECF No. 63 at 3. She
also claims she did not have a meaningful opportunity to be heard
on the operative pleading. Id. These things are simply untrue. The
court held a hearing on May 23, 2025, and granted Plaintiff leave
to amend her complaint. ECF No. 35. The court considered the
amended complaint and determined that Plaintiff failed to state a
federal claim. ECF No. 60 at 6–7. The court considered the motion
for leave to amend and denied it. Id. 7–8. Plaintiff did not object to
these rulings, which she had every right to do. The court notes that
Plaintiff has filed many documents on the court’s docket and has
had every opportunity to be heard. There is no basis on which the
court can conclude that the judgment is void.
Last, Plaintiff invokes Rule 60(b)(6), which allows the court
to relieve a party from the effect of a final judgment for “any other
reason that justifies relief.” As reasons, Plaintiff cites her pro se
status, 	unidentified 	“conflicting 	procedural 	bases 	cited 	in 	the
dismissal 	history,” 	“dismissal 	without 	adjudication 	on 	the
operative complaint,” and denial of leave to amend. ECF No. 60
at 4. Plaintiff does not support any of these reasons with facts,
argument, or law. None of these things could possibly warrant
relief from the judgment. The court did adjudicate the case based
on 	the 	operative 	complaint. 	The 	court 	is 	unaware 	of 	what
procedural conflicts Plaintiff is referencing. Denial of leave to
amend and pro se status are not, to the court’s knowledge, accepted
bases for granting relief under Rule 60.
Case 4:24-cv-03961 Document 64 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The court recommends that the motion for relief under Rule
60(b), ECF No. 63, be DENIED.
The parties have fourteen days from service of this report
and recommendation to file written objections. 	See 	28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Failure to timely file objections will
preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal conclusions,
except for plain error. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147–49
(1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 31, 2026.
___________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03961 Document 64 Filed 03/31/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3