Zheng et al v. State Farm Lloyds

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Shu Sean Zheng and Jia Geng,
Plaintiffs,
v.
State Farm Lloyds,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-25-3304
ORDER
Pending before the court is Defendant’s Motion for Leave to
File 	First 	Amended 	Answer. 	ECF Nos. 24, 25. 	The 	motion 	is
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall file ECF No. 24-1 on the
docket as Defendant’s First Amended Answer.
Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended 	Complaint. 	ECF No. 26. 	The 	motion 	seeks 	to 	add
allegations in support of Plaintiffs’ argument that State Farm
County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas (SFCMICT) was not
improperly joined. The motion is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ proposed
Second Amended Complaint does not add any information that
would alter the court’s decision set forth in the November 12, 2025
Order denying remand and dismissing SFCMICT from this case.
Finally, Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
the court’s November 12, 2025 Order. The motion is DENIED.
Rule 54(b) “permits the district court to reconsider and reverse its
decision for any reason it deems sufficient.” Ryan v. Phillips 66,
838 F. App’x 832, 836 (5th Cir. 2020) (quoting McClendon v. United
States, 892 F.3d 775, 781 (5th Cir. 2018)) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Courts have discretion to decide whether to grant
a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, such as the
one under consideration here. Deeds v. Whirlpool Corp., No. H-15-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03304 Document 35 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
2208, 2017 WL 3437772, at *10 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2017), aff’d, 764
F. App’x 407 (5th Cir. 2019); see also Vlasek v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., No. H-07-0386, 2008 WL 167082, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 16,
2008) (“Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders are left to the
court’s discretion so long as not filed unreasonably late.”).
Nevertheless, “[t]he court should only reconsider a prior
ruling when ‘the moving party has presented substantial reasons
for reconsideration.’” Fed. Ins. Co. v. C.D. Henderson Inc.,
No. A-07-CA-982-SS, 2009 WL 10670098, at *2 (Bankr. W.D. Tex.
Feb. 20, 2009) (quoting Anderson v. Red River Waterway Comm’n,
16 F. Supp. 2d 682, 683 (W.D. La. 1998), aff’d, 231 F.3d 211 (5th
Cir. 2000)). Drawing on the considerations underlying Rules 59
and 60, courts analyze factors such as: “(1) an intervening change
in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not
previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice.” Deeds, 2017 WL 3437772, at *12
(quoting In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir.
2002); see also Washington ex rel. J.W. v. Katy Indep. Sch. Dist.,
403 F. Supp. 3d 610, 617 (S.D. Tex. 2019) (conceptualizing the
same Rule 59(e) considerations as four factors instead of three).
None of these factors are present here. The court
understands that Plaintiffs disagree with the court’s analysis.
That is common, however. The court carefully considered the
arguments, evidence, and law in coming to its conclusions. Nothing
in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration calls into question the
court’s ruling. The Motion is therefore DENIED.
In the same Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs ask the
court to certify the November 12, 2025 Order for interlocutory
appeal. That motion is also DENIED. The Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals normally has jurisdiction to review only final decisions,
i.e., decisions that end litigation on the merits. Silverthorne
Seismic, L.L.C. v. Sterling Seismic Servs., Ltd., 125 F.4th 593, 598
Case 4:25-cv-03304 Document 35 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
(5th Cir. 2025). “A party unhappy with an interlocutory ruling
must wait until . . . final judgment, when it can appeal all claims
of error at once.” Id. However, there is a “narrow exception” to the
final-judgment rule. Id. A district court may “certify an order for
interlocutory appeal where (1) the ‘order involves a controlling
question of law,’ (2) ‘there is substantial ground for difference of
opinion’ 	on 	that 	question, 	and 	(3) an 	immediate 	appeal 	‘may
materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.’” Id.
at 598 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)).
The Fifth Circuit has stated that interlocutory appeals are
generally disfavored, and that Section 1292(b) must be strictly
construed. Id. An interlocutory appeal “is not a vehicle to question
the correctness of a district court’s ruling or to obtain a second,
more favorable opinion.” Ryan v. Flowserve Corp., 444 F. Supp. 2d
718, 	722 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	2006). 	Certification 	of 	an 	order 	for
interlocutory appeal is at the court’s discretion. United States v.
Caremark, Inc., 634 F.3d 808, 814 (5th Cir. 2011); Hidden Cove
Park & Marina v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 17-CV-193, 2018 WL
501079, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2018).
There 	is 	no 	controlling 	question 	of 	law 	at 	issue 	here.
Plaintiffs merely disagree with the court’s application of the law to
the facts, as well as the court’s analysis of the facts before it.
Interlocutory appeal is therefore inappropriate, and the request for
certification is DENIED.
Signed at Houston, Texas, on June 5, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03304 Document 35 Filed 06/05/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3