D'Antignac v. Deere & Company et al, No. 1:2010cv00116 - Document 93 (S.D. Ga. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER denying 86 Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration; granting 87 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting 88 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/05/2013. (thb) Modified on 12/5/2013 (thb).

Download PDF
D'Antignac v. Deere & Company et al Doc. 93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION VERONICA B. D'ANTIGNAC, * Plaintiff, * v. * DEERE & COMPANY, d/b/a JOHN CV 110-116 * DEERE COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, * INC., * and ALFREDO RENZI. * Defendants. * ORDER Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration. reasons stated below, March 13, no. 86.) 2013, Court granted (Doc. no. 78.) Deere & The discrimination Court claims concluded were barred that Company's A complete factual and procedural background can be found in that Order. 1-6.) the BACKGROUND the motion for summary judgment. at For this motion is DENIED. I. On (Doc. Plaintiff's by the doctrine (See id. employment of judicial estoppel because Plaintiff intentionally failed to disclose them during her bankruptcy proceeding. (Id. at 25.) Now, Plaintiff Dockets.Justia.com moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order granting summary j udgment.1 II. A. Applicable Rule Plaintiff pursuant 60. DISCUSSION to (Doc. trial" moves Federal no. or 59 (a) (1), (2). Rules 87-1 "after for at a a of new trial Civil 1.) Rule nonjury and Procedure 59(a) reconsideration 59(a), applies trial." See "after a R. Depending reconsideration, it is governed by either Rule 59(e) (holding entry that of motions Taylor, motions judgment are 465 filed are governed Fed. Appx. within governed by Rule timing by 839, of 840 a 60). for days 2012) of whereas Rule is or Rule 60. (11th Cir. 59(e), Here, P. motion twenty-eight Rule jury Rule 59(a) inapplicable. See Rivero v. the and Civ. Fed. As there was no trial in this case, on 59(e), 59(e) the later governs 1 First, Plaintiff filed a "Motion to File Brief with Excess Pages" (doc. no. 86), along with a "Brief in Support of Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration" that was within the 26-page limit provided by Local Rule 7.1 (doc. no. 86-1). Plaintiff then filed a second "Motion to File Brief with Excess Pages" (doc. no. 87), along with a "Brief in Support of Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration" by Local Rule 7.1 Amend Motion" to that was (doc. no. 87-1). change the in excess of the Thereafter, title of 26-page limit provided Plaintiff filed a "Motion to the first motion Trial and Reconsideration." (Doc. no. 88.) Plaintiff's "Motion to Amend Motion" (doc. no. 88) to is "Motion for hereby GRANTED, and the Clerk is DIRECTED to change the docket title of Document No. "Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration." File Brief with Excess Pages" will fully consider the (doc. no. 87) 31-page brief Further, 86 to Plaintiff's "Motion to is hereby GRANTED, and the Court (doc. "Motion for New Trial and Reconsideration." New no. 87-1) in ruling on the because Plaintiff's motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of judgment. B. (See Doc. nos. 79, 86, 87.) Legal Standard "In considering a motion for reconsideration, balance the need for finality and judicial economy against need to render just decisions." Ass'n Local 1423, No Ga. Jan. for identified the three law; for (3) 2012 393096, the (2) in an need to Smith v. WL 1355575, under Rule at *1 (S.D. does not set forth the this reconsideration injustice.'' 1:10-CV-126, WL courts new evidence; and prevent manifest No. district grounds availability of controlling 2013 "Although Rule 59(e) relief, the Collins v. Int'l Longshoremen's 2:09-CV-093, 30, 2013). grounds a court must of Circuit an have order: intervening change correct clear error (1) in or Augusta-Richmond Cnty., at *2 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2012). Reconsideration remedy, to be employed 59(e) is sparingly." Id. "an at extraordinary *1 (quotations omitted) . "A movant must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature decision." Id. reconsideration which could issued.'" 1267 induce the (quotations should and Id. to should not have be court to reverse omitted). used been to made raise before its prior "'Motions legal the for arguments judgment was (quoting Lockard v. Equifax, Inc., 163 F.3d 1259, (11th Cir. 1998). "Further, Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle for rehashing arguments already rejected refuting the court's prior decision." see also Arthur v. King/ 500 F.3d by Id. 1335, the court or for (quotations omitted); 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) ("A Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise or present could have been argument evidence that raised prior to the entry of judgment." (quotations omitted)). C. Analysis Plaintiff does not present any new evidence or identify any intervening change reconsideration. merely trying to prior decision, of And controlling though it is law that apparent relitigate old matters would that support Plaintiff is and refute the Court's the Court will construe Plaintiff's argument as an attempt to establish clear error or manifest injustice. First, Plaintiff argues that it is unconstitutional to extinguish Plaintiff's "inalienable life and liberty interests, protected by Title VII" through judicial estoppel limited jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court. 1 at 8-12.) Though Plaintiff's legal convoluted and not Court be that numerous and it must occasions, affirmed rejected. applied grants of the summary (See Doc. no. 87- argument entirely comprehensible, due to the is rather it is clear to the The Eleventh Circuit has, doctrine of judgment judicial against on estoppel plaintiffs pursuing Title VII claims that were not disclosed in bankruptcy. See, e.g. , Robinson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 595 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2010); Casanova v. PRE Solutions, (11th Cir. 2007); Barger v. (11th Cir. 2003); De Leon v. (11th Cir. 2003); Burnes v. 1285 (11th Cir. 2002). Inc., 228 Fed. City of Cartersville, Comcar Indus., Pemco Aeroplex, Therefore, Appx. 837 348 321 Inc., Inc., F.3d 1289 F.3d 1289 291 F.3d 1282, Plaintiff's argument presumes that these Eleventh Circuit precedents are unconstitutional and wrongly decided. the Eleventh As this Court lacks the authority to overrule Circuit, Plaintiff's argument constitutionality of judicial estoppel warrant in this context does not the Court carefully applied the above-referenced precedents in finding that Plaintiff employment (2) took discrimination inconsistent (1) claims had a duty to disclose to positions the Plaintiff argues post-confirmation that Bankruptcy under intentionally misled the Bankruptcy Court. 9-25.) oath, bankruptcy (See Doc. no. 78 at claims or at least bankruptcy assets, to debtor the 541(a)(7). not end once However, as early as 2002 proceeding), "must the Eleventh disclose bankruptcy (3) she had no duty to disclose her discrimination no. 87-1 at 14, 16-21.) Court, and duty was unclear during her bankruptcy proceeding. her the reconsideration. Moreover, her regarding all court. 11 Circuit assets, U.S.C. the (See Doc. (years before held or ยง that that a potential 521(1), and The duty to disclose is a continuing one that does the forms are submitted to the bankruptcy court; rather, a debtor circumstances added). must amend change." his Burnes, financial 291 F.3d statements at 1286 if (emphasis The duty to disclose continues "during the pendency of his Chapter 13 case," and until discharge because creditors and bankruptcy courts determining whether respectively. the disclose bankruptcy changes that contest or rendered proceeding his debtor disclosure approve statements a in discharge, 1288. Circuit in a debtor's 536 F.3d 1239, Eleventh "concluded to a decisions See In re Waldron, that on Id. at 1286, Additional Plaintiff's rely during reaffirmed 1244 a a to 2008) amend in his of principle. debtor's situation duty pendency this (11th Cir. "recognized financial had the (noting duty to Burnes," and schedule assets to disclose a complaint that he filed after his of plan to pay his creditors had been confirmed," in Ajaka v. BrooksAmerica Mortgage Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 228 at Fed. Appx. 841 1344 (holding (11th Cir. that 2006)); Casanova, plaintiff was required to disclose an EEOC charge filed "before or during the pendency of his bankruptcy petition" to the bankruptcy court). Additionally, multifactor particular test the Court recognized circumstances of emphasizes by the this that Eleventh case in Plaintiff's discrimination claims were barred. at 9-25.) it applied the to the Circuit determining (See Doc. that no. 78 The Court did not apply a per se rule, as alleged by Plaintiff eschews no. 87-1 "inflexible" Burnes, to (doc. 291 F.3d distinguish at at 16), because in applying rules 1285-86. the the judicial Furthermore, Eleventh Circuit's Eleventh Circuit estoppel. Plaintiff's precedents attempt from the circumstances of this case does not persuade the Court that its prior Order was wrongly decided and certainly fails to show any clear error or manifest injustice. Lastly, in (See Doc. no. 87-1 at 21-29.) Plaintiff's reply brief, she raises an argument regarding the viability of injunctive relief. at 2-8.) Eleventh In its prior Order, Circuit has (See Doc. no. 92 the Court recognized that "[t]he limited the application of judicial estoppel to claims for monetary relief and allowed the debtor's undisclosed claims for injunctive relief to proceed because a claim for injunctive relief generally will not add value to the bankruptcy estate even if properly disclosed." 25 n.7.) The Court determined that monetary damages. Now, relief Plaintiff was 78 at seeking only (Id.) Plaintiff argues along. However, all (Doc. no. motion for summary judgment, that she was in response pursuing to Deere injunctive & Company's Plaintiff never contended that she was pursuing injunctive relief untouchable by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. response to Plaintiff Deere Much & to Company's unambiguously the contrary, statement of stated that it was in Plaintiff's material facts, "undisputed" that "plaintiff seeks only recovery action."2 (Doc. no. 64 at 32.) Plaintiff "deliberately for simply too late for injunctive relief. in the present This is yet another example of changing exigencies of the moment." damages positions Burnes, Plaintiff according 291 F.3d at to change 1285. her to the And it is position on A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to raise arguments that could and should have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. WL 1355575, need Smith, 2012 at *1. Plaintiff Court Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343; presents not address a number of them here. other Most arguments, are shameless but the attempts to rehash arguments already rejected by the Court. Others have no In basis Plaintiff in the law applicable to has not established that this case. reconsideration is summary, necessary to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. III. Based on the foregoing, (doc. no. 88) is GRANTED, CONCLUSION Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Motion and the Clerk is DIRECTED to change the docket title of Document No. Reconsideration." Pages (doc. no. 86 to "Motion for New Trial and Plaintiff's Motion to 87) is GRANTED, File Brief with Excess and the Court fully considered 2 All facts set forth in a movant's statement of material facts "will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted" by the nonmovant. S.D. Ga. L.R. 56.1. the 31-page brief attached thereto. Trial and Reconsideration ORDER ENTERED (doc. no. at Augusta, Plaintiff's Motion 86.) for New is DENIED. Georgia, this <^ day of December 2013. MDAL HALL 'STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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.