Xia v. Ramey

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ELLEN XIA, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§
§
Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-3072-L-BN
LINA T. RAMEY AND ASSOCIATES
and WILLIAM MARTINEZ,
§
§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After traveling all the way to the United States Supreme Court, Plaintiff Ellen Xia
(“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Xia”) filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case for the Limited Purpose of Filing
Motion for Relief from Final Judgment Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (“First
Motion”) (Doc. 75) on July 23, 2025; and also filed Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Final
Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) (“Second Motion”) (Doc. 76) on
July 24, 2025. 	The court grants the First Motion and directs the clerk of court to reopen this
action for statistical purposes. The court denies the Second Motion.
I. 	Background
Ms. Xia initially asserted claims of employment discrimination against Defendants. These
claims were based on sex, race, status, and a hostile work environment. 	She also asserted
additional claims related to her H-1B visa for promissory estoppel, fraud, defamation, and one
directly under the H-1B statute.
This court granted Lina Ramey and Associates and William Martinez’s Motion filed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed this action with prejudice (Doc.
54) on April 17, 2023, and issued judgment against Ms. Xia on the same date (Doc. 55). Ms. Xia
Case 3:21-cv-03072-L-BN Document 80 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2
appealed this court’s judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the
“Fifth Circuit”) on May 16, 2023 (Docs. 56, 57, and 58). The Fifth Circuit affirmed this court’s
judgment on February 21, 2024 (Doc. 71). She then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, and the
United States Supreme Court denied the petition on October 7, 2024 (Doc. 74).
On July 25, 2025, the Honorable Magistrate Judge David Horan filed his Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that this action be reopened for
statistical 	purposes, 	concluding 	that 	Plaintiff’s 	Rule 	60(b)(6) 	Motion 	failed 	to 	establish
“extraordinary circumstances” to grant the relief requested, and recommending that Ms. Xia’s Rule
60(b)(6) Motion should, therefore, be denied. Ms. Xia filed Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation (Doc. 79) on August 7, 2025.
II. 	Discussion
As previously stated, Plaintiff Xia filed her Second Motion pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). This
part of Rule 60(b) provides as follows:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding.
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following
reasons:
. . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
A motion under Rule 60(b)(6) must be filed “within a reasonable time . . . after the entry of the
judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). The court determines
that the Second Motion was timely filed. As Magistrate Judge Horan aptly noted, “[R]elief under
Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” 	Report at 2 (quoting Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 123 (2017) (citations omitted)).
Case 3:21-cv-03072-L-BN Document 80 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3
Ms. Xia filed Plaintiff’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation (Doc. 79) on August 7, 2025. Her objections are numerous and cover some 18
pages. Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiff’s Objections. After conducting a de novo
review of Plaintiff’s Objections, the court came to the conclusion that Plaintiff had not set forth
sufficient or analogous authority for the court to conclude that extraordinary circumstances are
present such that the relief she seeks under Rule 60(b)(6) would be warranted. Accordingly, the
court accepts the Report of the Magistrate Judge, and the findings and conclusions therein are
accepted as those of the court. 	The court overrules Plaintiff’s Objections and denies with
prejudice Plaintiff’s Rule 60(b)(6) Motion (Doc. 76). 	The court directs the clerk of court to
reopen this action for statistical purposes and then immediately close it.
It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2026.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-03072-L-BN Document 80 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>