Center For Restorative Breast Surgery, L.L.C. et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana et al, No. 2:2011cv00806 - Document 508 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 469 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF

Center For Restorative Breast Surgery, L.L.C. et al v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana et al Doc. 508 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A CEN TER FOR RESTORATIVE BREAST SU RGERY, L.L.C., ET AL., Plain tiffs CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 11-8 0 6 BLU E CROSS BLU E SH IELD OF LOU ISIAN A, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 5 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ m otion for reconsideration. 1 The Court has reviewed the briefs, 2 the record, and the applicable law, and now issues this order an d reasons. On J une 24, 20 15, the Court ruled on Defendants’ m otion to dism iss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 The Court granted the m otion and dism issed Counts II, III, and IV of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Am ended Com plaint with prejudice. 4 In their m otion to reconsider, Plaintiffs argue the Court should recon sider its order granting Defendants’ m otion to dism iss. 5 The Court’s order granting Defendants’ m otion is an interlocutory order since it did not adjudicate all of Plaintiffs’ claim s. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claim s or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . m ay be revised at any tim e before the entry of a [final] judgm ent.”6 Although the district court has broad 1 R. Doc. 469. R. Doc. 469; R. Doc. 477; R. Doc. 484. 3 R. Doc. 371. 4 Id. 5 R. Doc. 469. 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com discretion to reconsider an interlocutory order for any reason it deem s sufficient, 7 this power “is exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexam ination of orders and the resulting burdens an d delays.”8 Generally, the courts in this district evaluate a m otion to reconsider an interlocutory order under the sam e standards as those governing a m otion to alter or am end a final judgm ent brought pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 Such a m otion “m ust clearly establish either a m anifest error of law or fact or m ust present newly discovered eviden ce and cannot be used to raise argum ents which could, and should, have been m ade before the judgm ent issued.”10 A m otion for reconsideration, however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or argum ents that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’”11 “The Court is m indful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgm ent after its entry is an extraordin ary rem edy that should be used sparingly.’”12 “When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration other than m ere disagreem ent with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial tim e and resources and should not be granted.”13 In deciding m otions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have considered the following factors: 7 See U.S. v. Renda, 70 9 F.3d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 20 13) (citation and internal quotation m arks om itted) (“Rule 54(b) authorizes a district court to reconsider and reverse its prior rulin gs on an y interlocutory order for any reason it deem s sufficient.”) 8 Castrillo v. Am . Hom e Mortgage Servicing, Inc., No. 0 9-4369, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 20 10 ) (Vance, J .). 9 See, e.g., id. at *3– 4 (“The gen eral practice of this court has been to evaluate m otions to reconsider interlocutory orders under the sam e standards that govern Rule 59(e) m otions to alter or am end a final judgm ent.”). However, there are som e circum stances in which a different standard would be appropriate. Id. (citing Am . Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farm s, Inc., 326 F.3d 50 5, 514– 16 (4th Cir. 20 0 3)). 10 Schiller v. Phy sicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir.20 0 3) (citations and internal quotation m arks om itted). 11 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, 20 0 9 WL 1565940 , at *8 (E.D. La. J une 3, 20 0 9) (Vance, J .) (quoting Tem plet v. Hy droChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 – 79 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 12 Castrillo, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in origin al) (quotin g Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 479). 13 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 0 7-4833, 20 12 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 20 12). 2 (1) whether the m ovant dem onstrates the m otion is n ecessary to correct m anifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgm ent is based; (2) whether the m ovant presents new eviden ce; (3) whether the m otion is necessary in order to prevent m anifest injustice; and (4) whether the m otion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. 14 Nothing asserted by Plaintiffs in their m otion for reconsideration or their reply establishes that they are entitled to relief under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ m otion for reconsideration is D EN IED . 15 N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 11th d ay o f Ap ril, 2 0 16 . _______ _____________ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 14 Castrillo, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4. The Court notes that the tim e lim its of Rule 59 do not apply in this m atter because the order appealed is interlocutory. Rules 59 and 60 set forth deadlines for seeking reconsideration of final judgm ents. See Carter v. Farm ers Rice Milling Co., Inc., 33 F. App’x 70 4 (5th Cir. 20 0 2); Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 0 7-4833, 20 12 WL 711842, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 20 12). 15 R. Doc. 469. 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.