Felton v. Fifth Third Bank N.A. et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
VICTORIA SHANEKA TILLMAN FELTON 	* 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 25-2242
VERSUS 	* 	JUDGE ELDON E. FALLON
FIFTH THIRD BANK, N.A. AND 	* 	MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WISELY ® BY ADP, INC. 	EVA J. DOSSIER
* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	* 	*
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by pro se Plaintiff Victoria Felton.
R. Doc. 21. For the following reasons, the Court will deny her motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND & PRESENT MOTION
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants Fifth Third Bank, N.A., and Wisely® by ADP, Inc.
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that they are to blame for “shortages” of her student loan
deposits into her bank account with them. R. Doc. 1 at 4. The Court dismissed her suit pursuant to
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Court found that it did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the action and that Plaintiff had pleaded her best case, thus
rendering amendment futile. R. Doc. 18. In its Order & Reasons, the Court explained to Ms. Felton
that her supporting documentation (1) revealed “shortages” in a total amount of $147.00 across
three semesters of school, and (2) that the alleged “shortages” appear to originate in her student
portal account, rather than in her bank account. Id. at 4–5. Considering this, the Court dismissed
her complaint because the amount-in-controversy could not plausibly exceed $75,000.00 and noted
that she has the option to pursue her claims in state court if she wished to do so.
Plaintiff now files a motion for reconsideration, asking the Court to review additional
documentation and recognize that she has asserted a claim for more than $75,000.00. R. Doc. 21.
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move to alter or amend
a judgment within twenty-eight days of its entry. The Fifth Circuit recognizes three grounds for
the granting of a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e): “(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.” In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d
626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002). “A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly
establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and
cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment
issued.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).
“A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been
urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction.” SPE FO Holdings,
LLC v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC, No. 07–3779, 2008 WL 3285907, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2008).
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Shopf v. Griggers, No. 17-10958, 2018 WL 1453214, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 23, 2018);
see also Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, does not present arguments relative to the reconsideration
standards. See R. Doc. 21. Preliminarily, the Court notes that it must construe her pleadings with
all deference due a pro se litigant. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se
pleadings are “to be liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers”); Windland v. Quarterman, 578 F.3d 314, 316 (5th Cir. 2009) (noting the “well-
established precedent requiring that [courts] construe pro se briefs liberally”). Even under the most
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 2 of 4

3
liberal construction of her motion for reconsideration, however, Ms. Felton has not submitted
additional documentation nor argumentation to support a right to have this case reopened.
Briefly, the Court notes that there has not been an intervening change in the law since it
issued its Order & Reasons. But the Court will look to the documents submitted by Plaintiff with
the motion to determine if Ms. Felton has “‘clearly establish[ed] either a manifest error of law or
fact or [has] present[ed] newly discovered evidence.’” Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th
Cir. 2005) (quoting Pioneer Nat. Res. USA, Inc. v. Paper, Allied Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers
Int’l Union Local 4-487, 328 F.3d 818, 820 (5th Cir. 2003)).
Ms. Felton has not presented documentation to support a manifest error of law or fact, nor
presented documents that, even liberally construed, constitute newly discovered evidence. For
example, Ms. Felton again attaches what appear to be screenshots from her Delgado student
account and/or her loan servicer website. R. Doc. 21-1. The Court considered similar records in its
Rule 12(h)(3) analysis. Compare R. Doc. 15-1 at 3–4 with R. Doc. 21-1 at 3–4 (website portals
that do not appear to be her banking portals which reflect identical nominal deductions from her
student loans). If, for example, Ms. Felton had submitted copies of her bank statements which
reflect that the amounts listed in her student portal and loan servicer portals was not the ultimate
amount deposited in her bank account, perhaps the Court could consider her attachments as new
evidence that warrant consideration to prevent a manifest error of fact.
But even in that event, the aggregate amount of loan money due to be deposited into her
bank account—as reflected in her student portal and loan servicer portal—must be so great that
the amount in controversy could plausibly exceed $75,000.00. The Court does not find that is
possible under the present facts and with the present record. Instead, it appears to the Court that
Ms. Felton’s ultimate concerns may lay with her loan services provider or her school, since she
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 3 of 4

4
only attaches documents from those two entities. On this record, Plaintiff has not submitted any
new evidence (1) relative to her banking service provider, nor (2) that could allow the Court to
conclude that the amount in controversy could be satisfied. The Court will not grant the
extraordinary remedy of reconsidering its final judgment in this matter.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Considering the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, R. Doc. 21, is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 24th day of March, 2026.
THE HONORABLE ELDON E. FALLON
Case 2:25-cv-02242-EEF-EJD Document 22 Filed 03/24/26 Page 4 of 4