Nottingham v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., No. 2:2007cv04211 - Document 129 (E.D. La. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 109 Motion for Reconsideration of court's ruling on motion for partial summary judgment. Signed by Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. (ecm, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nottingham v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. Doc. 129 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MANNY L. NOTTINGHAM CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 07-4211 MURPHY OIL USA, INC., ET AL SECTION: "S" (4) ORDER AND REASONS The motion for reconsideration for court’s ruling on motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. # 109) by defendants Murphy Oil USA, Inc. and Murphy Exploration & Production Company (collectively, “Murphy”) is DENIED. BACKGROUND The background facts are recited in the court’s earlier ruling, denying defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. #103) and are not repeated here. Defendants move for reconsideration, reurging their position that the MEDUSA is not a vessel and that the lifeboat was an appurtenance of the MEDUSA. Dockets.Justia.com ANALYSIS 1. Legal Standard “A Rule 59(e) motion is a motion that calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”1 The court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration arising under Rule 59(e).2 “Rule 59(e) is properly invoked to correct a manifest error of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”3 “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.”4 2. Motion for Reconsideration Defendants raise no new facts or case law which merit further consideration by this court. Defendants incorporate their original memorandum and exhibits which address all issues raised in defendants’ motion. The court carefully considered the merits of defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, and finds no basis upon which to reconsider its ruling. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 1 In Re TransTexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5 th Cir. 2002). 2 Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5 th Cir. 1990). 3 In re TransTexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d at 581 (internal quotation and citation omitted). 4 In Re Self, 172 F. Supp.2d 813, 816 (W .D. La. 2001). 2 7th New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of April, 2009. ____________________________________ MARY ANN VIAL LEMMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
