GDQ CORPORATION, An Arkansas Corporation v. SANFORD P. BRASS, An Individual

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20953
GDQ CORPORATION, An Arkansas Corporation
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
SANFORD P. BRASS, An Individual
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-1936
--------------------
August 11, 2000
Before KING, Chief Judge, and REYNALDO G. GARZA and PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Citing Bianca v. Parke-Davis Pharmaceutical Div. of Warner-
Lambert Co., 723 F.3d 392, 397 (5th Cir. 1984), the district
court correctly held that the inquiry under 28 U.S.C. § 1359 is
guided by the “motive/function” rule, and the effort of
defendant-appellant Sanford P. Brass to persuade us that a
different rule does or should obtain for assignments fails for
the reasons adduced by plaintiff-appellee GDQ Corporation in its
appellate brief. The findings of fact of the district court on
the question whether the assignment at issue here was improperly

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20953
-2-
or collusively made to invoke federal jurisdiction are not
clearly erroneous. The district court also correctly held that
the assignment was valid under Oklahoma law. Brass’s contention
that the assignment was champertous, which was made to the
district court for the first time in his motion for
reconsideration was waived. Even if it had not been waived, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brass’s
motion for reconsideration on this ground as GDQ had a sufficient
interest in the action and no officious intermeddling was
established. Finally, having argued that Oklahoma law controlled
on the statute of limitations issue during the briefing on the
summary judgment motion, Brass was in no position to change
horses on his motion for reconsideration.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --