Klein v. Girod LoanCo, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
HENRY L. KLEIN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1515
GIROD LOANCO, LLC, ET AL. 	SECTION: D(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Dismissal, filed by
Plaintiff Henry L. Klein.1 In it, Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider its Order
of Dismissal2 for several reasons. Defendants Girod LoanCo, LLC, Girod Titling
Trust, and Girod REO, LLC (“Defendants”) filed a response in opposition,3 and
Plaintiff has replied.4 After a thorough review of the parties’ memoranda, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court declines to reconsider its finding regarding subject-
matter jurisdiction, and because it lacks jurisdiction over the present action, the
Court does not possess the authority to consider the present motion and thus
DENIES it.5
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case is the most recent in a series of cases based on (1) cases that Plaintiff
Klein brought when he was a licensed attorney regarding Girod’s purchase of notes
from the FDIC that were previously held by First NBC Bank before it collapsed and
1 R. Doc. 54.
2 R. Doc. 53.
3 R. Doc. 57.
4 R. Doc. 59.
5 13 FED. PRAC. & PROC. JURIS. § 3522 Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (3d ed. 2026) (“A federal court's
entertaining a case that is not within its subject matter jurisdiction is no mere technical violation; it
is nothing less than an unconstitutional usurpation of state judicial power.”).
Case 2:25-cv-01515-WBV-MBN Document 63 Filed 05/12/26 Page 1 of 5

2
based on (2) Girod LoanCo’s attempt to recover a post-foreclosure sale balance owed
to Girod by Klein as the guarantor of a promissory note.6 Having previously found
that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the action because the Court
lacks federal question jurisdiction over the action and because Plaintiff’s suit is
barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine,7 the Court now addresses Plaintiff’s motion
that it reconsider that finding.8
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and urges the
Court to reconsider its previous Order and Reasons dismissing the present action for
want of subject-matter jurisdiction.9 Because Plaintiff’s motion seeks reconsideration
of an order dismissing the case, the Court analyzes such a motion under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 59(e). “A motion for reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and should be used
sparingly in the interest of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”10 Motions
to reconsider under the rule “serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”11 When
analyzing this type of motion, courts consider four factors: “(1) the judgment is based
upon a manifest error of fact or law; (2) newly discovered or previously unavailable
6 See Civ. Act. No. 21-724, Civ. Act. No. 24-1993, Civ. Act. No. 24-2161, Civ. Act. No. 24-2366, Civ. Act.
No. 25-1047, Civ. Ac. No. 25-1127.
7 R. Doc. 53.
8 R. Doc. 54.
9 R. Doc. 53.
10 United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Truong, No. CV 21-480, 2021 WL 5961651, at *4 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2021),
aff'd, No. 22-30027, 2022 WL 3097367 (5th Cir. Aug. 3, 2022).
11 Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted).
Case 2:25-cv-01515-WBV-MBN Document 63 Filed 05/12/26 Page 2 of 5

3
evidence exists; (3) the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (4) an intervening
change in law alters the appropriate outcome.”12
Plaintiff 	fails 	to 	present 	any 	evidence 	or 	argument 	that 	his 	motion 	is
predicated upon newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or that there
was an intervening change in law that alters the Court’s decision in its previous
Order 	and 	Reasons. 	Thus, 	his 	motion 	rests 	on 	two 	possible 	grounds 	for
reconsideration: (1) that the decision is based on a manifest error of fact or law or (2)
that the Court’s previous decision was manifestly unjust. Plaintiff has failed to
establish either ground for reconsideration.
Plaintiff argues that reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order and Reasons
“will 	fulfill 	‘...the 	virtually 	unflagging 	obligation 	of 	this 	Court 	to 	exercise 	its
jurisdiction given ...’”13 and cites several Supreme Court cases “that constitute ‘...the
supreme law of the land...’” What Plaintiff fails to do, however, is describe how these
cases relate to the present case such that the present case arises out of a question of
federal law.14 Plaintiff does not describe how these cases create the cause of action in
the present case.
Nor does Plaintiff explain why the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should not apply
to the present case. “Reduced to its essence, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine ‘holds that
inferior federal courts do not have the power to modify or reverse state court
12 Truong, 2021 WL 5961651, at *4.
13 R. Doc. 54-1 at p. 3.
14 A suit brought pursuant to a federal court’s federal question jurisdiction must “arise out of a
controversy between the parties in regard to the operation and effect of the Constitution or laws upon
the facts involved.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter, 177 U.S. 505, 507, 20 S. Ct. 726, 726–27, 44 L. Ed.
864 (1900).
Case 2:25-cv-01515-WBV-MBN Document 63 Filed 05/12/26 Page 3 of 5

4
judgments.’”15 The Court previously held that each element of the doctrine was met
in the present case, and Plaintiff has presented neither new evidence nor novel
argument that the doctrine is inapplicable.16 Furthermore, as the Court noted
previously, Plaintiff “cannot circumvent [the Rooker-Feldman doctrine] by asserting
claims not raised in the state court proceedings or claims framed as original claims
for relief,” because “these claims are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with [the] state
judgment[.]”17 For those reasons, the Court reiterates that it lacks jurisdiction over
the action both under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.18 Its prior
Order and Reasons was neither based on a manifest error of fact or law nor manifestly
unjust. The Court declines to reconsider it.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of
Order of Dismissal19 is DENIED.
15 Union Planters Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Salih, 369 F.3d 457, 462 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Reitnauer v.
Texas Exotic Feline Found., Inc. (In re Reitnauer), 152 F.3d 341, 343 (5th Cir.1998)).
16 See R. Doc. 53; see also R. Doc. 54-1 at pp. 7-8.
17 Heisler v. Girod LoanCo, LLC, No. 21-CV-1343, 2021 WL 4125057, at *3 (E.D. La. Sept. 9, 2021)
(citing Turner v. Cade, 354 F. App’x 108, 111 (5th Cir. 2009)) (internal quotations omitted).
18 The Court briefly addresses Plaintiff’s other arguments: as to Plaintiff’s arguments about his Motion
for Summary Judgment (R. Doc. 45), the Court cannot consider the motion because it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction over the underlying action. Furthermore, as the Court previously stated, Plaintiff
is not permitted represent a class of plaintiffs in the present action and has provided no authority from
any district court or court of appeals that a pro se litigant is permitted to do so. See R. Doc. 53 at n. 58.
(“The Court notes that, while the Fifth Circuit does not have a blanket prohibition on pro se plaintiff’s
serving as class representatives, ‘courts throughout this circuit consistently hold that pro se plaintiffs
may not serve as class representatives.’ Williams v. Solar Alternatives, Inc., No. CV 23-2533, 2023 WL
4931853, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 2, 2023) (collecting cases), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV
23-2533, 2023 WL 6121796 (E.D. La. Sept. 19, 2023).”).
19 R. Doc. 54.
Case 2:25-cv-01515-WBV-MBN Document 63 Filed 05/12/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other pending motions are DENIED
AS MOOT.
New Orleans, Louisiana, May 12, 2026.
_____________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01515-WBV-MBN Document 63 Filed 05/12/26 Page 5 of 5