Dante v. Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RUBEN LANDON DANTE,
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-cv-3099
POWER HOME REMODELING
GROUP LLC, DBA PHRG LLC,
POWER HRG,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM, RECOMMENDATION, AND ORDER
Pending before the Court1 is pro se Plaintiff Ruben Landon Dante’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration and Continuation of Discovery (ECF
No. 54). 	Based on a review of the motion, arguments, and relevant law, the
Court RECOMMENDS 	Plaintiff’s Motion (id.) be DENIED. 	The Court
FURTHER RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 56) be
DENIED AS MOOT. 	Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s
Motion to E-File (ECF No. 57) and Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF
No. 58).
1 This case was referred to the Undersigned for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. (ECF Nos. 5, 60).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

2
I. 	Background
This is an employment discrimination case, arising out of Plaintiff’s
employment with Defendant Power Home Remodeling Group, LLC, DBA
PHRG LLC, Power HRG’s (“Defendant”).
On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Original Petition against Defendant
in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2024-
26260. 	(ECF No. 1-2 at 1–22). 	Plaintiff filed his First Amended Original
Petition (“Amended 	Petition”) on May 	1, 2024. 	(ECF 	No. 1-3 at 1–47).
Plaintiff’s Amended Petition asserts 	the following claims: (1) Fraudulent
Inducement (id. at 26–28); (2) Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”) (id. at 28–32, 37–40); (3) Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work
Environment (id. at 32–34); (4) Claims for alleged “Individual Liability and
“Respondeat Superior” (id. at 34–35); (5) Retaliation under the FLSA (id. at
35–36); (6) Retaliation under Title VII (id. at 36); (7) Race Discrimination
under Section 1981 (id. at 32–33, 37); (8) Pain and Suffering, Inconvenience,
Mental 	Anguish, 	and 	Loss 	of 	Enjoyment 	of 	Life 	(id. 	at 	41–42); 	and 	(9)
Recordkeeping (id. at 42–45). 	On August 20, 2024, Defendant removed the
case to this Court. (See ECF No. 1).
On June 25, 2026, Defendant moved for summer judgment on all of
Plaintiff’s claims. 	(See ECF No. 42). 	On October 22, 2025, the Undersigned
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

3
recommended Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (id.) be granted.
(ECF 	No. 	48). 	On 	November 	7, 	2025, 	the 	District 	Judge 	adopted 	the
Undersigned’s Memorandum and Recommendation. 	(ECF No. 51). 	A Final
Judgment was entered the same day, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s
claims against Defendant. (ECF No. 52).
On 	December 	3, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	filed 	the 	instant 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration and Continuation of Discovery. (ECF No. 54).
II. 	Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration is generally governed by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) or 60(b). 	Shepherd v. Int’l Paper Co., 372 F.3d
326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). 	The timing of the motion determines which rule
applies. 	See Garcia v. Rodriguez, No. 1:22-cv-108, 2023 WL 11867321, at *1
(S.D. Tex. July 14, 2023). If a motion for reconsideration is filed within twenty-
eight days of the order to be reconsidered, then Rule 59(e) applies. 	Id.
However, any motion for reconsideration filed after twenty-eight days of the
order to be reconsidered is reviewed under Rule 60(b). 	See Olivarez v. Davis,
No. 2:19-cv-396, 2021 WL 4071155, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2021), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-cv-396, 2021 WL 4067257 (S.D. Tex. Sept.
7, 2021).
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

4
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is dated December 3, 2025. 	(ECF
No. 54). The District Judge’s Order adopting the Undersigned’s Memorandum
and Recommendation and Final Judgment is dated November 7, 2025. 	(ECF
No. 51). 	As such, Plaintiff filed his motion within twenty-eight days of the
order to be reconsidered, and Rule 59(e) applies. See Soliz v. Nueces Cnty., No.
2:23-cv-107, 2024 WL 6822811, at *2 (S.D. Tex. July 23, 2024).
Motions for reconsideration under Rule 59 serve a “narrow purpose of
allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” 	Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.
1989) (internal quotations omitted). 	Thus, a court may grant a motion for
reconsideration 	and alter 	or 	amend 	a judgment 	to “(1) 	accommodate an
intervening 	change 	in 	controlling 	law; 	(2) 	account 	for 	newly 	discovered
evidence; or (3) correct a manifest error of law or fact.” 	Trevino v. City of Fort
Worth, 944 F.3d 567, 570 (5th Cir. 2019). 	“A Rule 59(e) motion must ‘clearly
establish’ one of these categories to obtain relief.” Callis v. Lumpkin, No. 6:20-
cv-060, 2022 WL 112030, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) (quoting Lamb v.
Ashford 	Place 	Apartments 	L.L.C., 	914 	F.3d 	940, 	943 	(5th 	Cir. 	2019)).
Importantly, a motion for reconsideration “cannot be used to raise arguments
which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Simon
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

5
v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). Nor should it be used to
introduce evidence that was available prior to the entry of judgment or to
relitigate old issues, advance new theories, or secure a rehearing on the merits.
Richard v. Davis, No. 17-cv-1811, 2017 WL 6761825, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 27,
2017) (citing Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).
Here, 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	show 	an 	intervening 	change 	in 	law, 	the
emergence of new evidence, or a manifest error of law or fact. Instead, Plaintiff
re-asserts arguments previously raised in his objections to the Undersigned’s
Memorandum and Recommendation. 	Compare (ECF No. 50 at 8–50), with
(ECF No. 54 at 6–12, 17–48). 	The District Judge has already overruled those
objections. 	(See ECF No. 51). 	To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reassert his
objections (see ECF No. 54 at 53), his motion fails. 	As discussed, a motion for
reconsideration under Rule 59 may 	not relitigate old issues or secure a
rehearing on the merits. 	See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479; see also Callis, 2022
WL 112030, at *1 (“[A] Rule 59(e) motion is not appropriate to re-urge the same
arguments.”).
A district court has “considerable discretion” to grant or deny a motion
under Rule 59(e). 	See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355
(5th Cir. 1993). However, the Fifth Circuit has cautioned that reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that courts should use sparingly.
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

6
See Templet, 367 F.3d at 479. 	Plaintiff has not identified an intervening
change in controlling law, the availability of new evidence not previously
available, a manifest error of law or fact in relation to the dismissal of this
case, 	or 	any 	other 	extraordinary 	circumstances 	justifying 	alteration 	or
amendment of the judgment of dismissal. 	As such, the Court finds Plaintiff
has not shown that the extraordinary relief provided by Rule 59(e) is justified
in this case. 	See Townsel v. White, No. 1:20-cv-18, 2020 WL 3669937, at *1
(N.D. Miss. July 6, 2020) (“[C]onstruing the Plaintiff’s filing liberally, he
appears to argue that the Court made a manifest error in fact . . . . 	However,
the Plaintiff has provided nothing to support his contention and appears to
simply be dissatisfied with the Court’s ruling. In other words, the Plaintiff has
provided the Court nothing new to consider, and the Court therefore finds that
its initial ruling should remain unchanged.”).
IV. 	Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration and Continuation of Discovery (ECF No. 54) be DENIED.
The Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (ECF
No. 56) be DENIED AS MOOT. 	Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT
Plaintiff’s Motion to E-File (ECF No. 57) and Motion for Leave to File Excess
Pages (ECF No. 58).
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

7
The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Recommendation
to the respective parties who have fourteen days from the receipt thereof to file
written objections thereto pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)
and General Order 2002-13. Failure to file written objections within the time
period mentioned shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual
findings and legal conclusions on appeal.
SIGNED in Houston, Texas on May 18, 2026.
______________________________
Richard W. Bennett
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:24-cv-03099 Document 61 Filed 05/18/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7