Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc. et al, No. 2:2011cv02375 - Document 562 (E.D. La. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 557 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 5/1/2018. (Reference: 16-2490)(bwn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hanover Insurance Company v. Superior Labor Services, Inc. et al Doc. 562 UN ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIAN A H AN OVER IN SU RAN CE COMPAN Y, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 11-2 3 75 c/ w 14 -19 3 0 , 14 -19 3 3 , 16 -2 4 9 0 SU PERIOR LABOR SERVICES, IN C., ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 3 ) Ap p lie s t o : 16 -2 4 9 0 ORDER AN D REASON S Before the Court is Great Am erican Insurance Company’s (“Great American”) motion to alter or amend the Court’s order dism issing Great American’s amended complaint. 1 Allied Shipyard, Inc. (“Allied”) opposes the motion. 2 Great American has filed a reply. 3 For the reasons that follow, the Court DEN IES the m otion. I. BACKGROUN D On March 25, 2016, Great Am erican filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief regarding its rights and obligations with respect to Masse Contracting, Inc. (“Masse”) and Allied based on claim s for defense and indemnity asserted as a result of two Louisiana state court lawsuits, Adam s v. Allied Shipy ards, Inc. and St. Pierre v. Allied Shipy ard, Inc. 4 On August 26, 20 16, Great American filed an amended complaint. 5 In its amended com plaint, Great Am erican alternatively sought a declaratory judgment that it is entitled to 1 R. Doc. 557. R. Doc. 558. 3 R. Doc. 560 . 4 R. Doc. 1 at 1. 5 R. Doc. 371. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com contribution from Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”), United Capitol Insurance Company (“United Capitol”), Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”), Atlantic Insurance Company (“AIC”), State National Insurance Company (“SNIC”), Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”), Clarendon National Insurance Company (“Clarendon”), and The Gray Insurance Company (“Gray”) (collectively, the “Insurers”), “[i]n the event that the Court finds that Great Am erican has a duty to indem nify and/ or defend Masse Contracting, Inc., and/ or Allied Shipyard, Inc., for the whole of their damages and costs in connection with the Underlying Lawsuits.”6 On March 30, 20 17, Gray filed a motion to dismiss Great Am erican’s claims against it. 7 On J uly 12, 20 17, the Court granted Gray’s m otion, holding that Great American’s claims against Gray did not constitute a justiciable case or controversy, and dismissing Great American’s claim s against Gray for lack of subject-m atter jurisdiction. 8 Allied filed a motion to dism iss on August 18, 2017. 9 In its motion, Allied did not move the Court to dismiss Great American’s claims against itself; rather, Allied sought dismissal of Great American’s claim s against the Insurers rem aining after the dismissal of Gray (collectively, the “Rem aining Insurers”). 10 As Gray did in its motion, Allied argued Great Am erican’s com plaint against the Rem aining Insurers should be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because there existed no justiciable case or controversy between Great Am erican and the Remaining Insurers. 11 6 Id. at 10 . R. Doc. 472. 8 R. Doc. 512 at 12– 13. 9 R. Doc. 539. 10 Id. 11 Id. at 6. 7 2 On March 13, 2018, the Court struck Allied’s motion, but nevertheless dism issed Great American’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b). 12 The Court concluded that the parties to the suit needed to be realigned based on the principal purpose of Great Am erican’s complaint and that Gray was an indispensable party to the suit. Because, however, including Gray as a party to the suit would destroy the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the Court dismissed Great American’s complaint without prejudice. 13 Great American now m oves the Court to reconsider this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 14 Great Am erican argues that although “the Court correctly identified the ‘principal purpose’ of Great American’s complaint and correctly held that Gray is an indispensable party under Rule 19, the Court did not account for the undeniable fact that Gray is indisputably and squarely opposed to the ‘remaining insurers’ and to Great American with regard to the prim ary issue or ‘principal purpose’ of the suit.”15 II. LAW AN D AN ALYSIS A m otion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “m ust clearly establish either a m anifest error of law or fact or m ust present newly discovered evidence an d cannot be used to raise argum ents which could, and should, have been m ade before the judgm ent issued.”16 A m otion for reconsideration, however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing eviden ce, legal theories, or argum ents that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’”17 “The Court is 12 R. Doc. 556. Id. at 16. 14 R. Doc. 557-1 at 1. 15 Id. 16 Schiller v. Phy sicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (citations om itted) (internal quotation m arks om itted). 17 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 0 7-290 4, 20 0 9 WL 1565940 , at *8 (E.D. La. J un e 3, 20 0 9) (quoting Tem plet v. Hy droChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 – 79 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 13 3 m indful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgm ent after its entry is an extraordinary rem edy that should be used sparingly.’”18 “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 an d should not be granted.”19 In deciding m otions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have considered the following factors: (1) whether the m ovant dem onstrates the m otion is necessary 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. 20 In this case, Great Am erican argues the Court should alter its prior order based on the first factor, that the order is based on a m anifest error of law. 21 According to Great Am erican, although Gray is an indispen sable party to this case, it m ust rem ain align ed as a Defendant, thereby restoring this Court’s diversity subject m atter jurisdiction. 22 However, as Allied points out it its opposition to Great Am erican’s m otion, Great Am erican m akes this argum ent without providing any support. Moreover, Gray, like Great Am erican, challenges its obligations to Allied. Thus, the Court correctly aligned Gray as a Plaintiff. 23 Accordingly; 18 Castrillo v. Am . Hom e M ortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 0 9-4369, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in original) (quoting Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 479). 19 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 0 7-4833, 20 12 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 20 12). 20 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, 20 12 WL 711842, at *2. 21 R. Doc. 557-1 at 1. 22 Id. 23 See U.S. Fidelity & Guaran ty & Co. v. Thom as Solvent Co., 955 F.2d 10 85 (6th Cir. 1992). 4 CON CLUSION IT IS ORDERED that Great Am erican’s motion to reconsider is hereby DEN IED. N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 1s t day o f May, 2 0 18 . ______ _____________ ________ SUSIE MORGAN UN ITED STATES DISTRICT JU DGE 5
]]>
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.
