Snider v. New Hampshire Insurance Company et al, No. 2:2014cv02132 - Document 275 (E.D. La. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 271 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/25/16. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Snider v. New Hampshire Insurance Company et al Doc. 275 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KAN D ISE SN ID ER, Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 14 -2 13 2 N EW H AMPSH IRE IN SU RAN CE COMPAN Y, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION “E” ( 1) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is the “Motion for a New Trial; To Alter or Am end J udgm ent” filed by Defendants, J WK Enterprises (“J WK”), Occidental Fire & Casualty Insurance Com pany of North Carolina, and J ohnny Moore (collectively, “J WK Defendants”). 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 15, 20 16, the Court ruled on m otions in lim ine filed by Defendants Fidel Garcia, ASF Interm odal LLC (“ASF”), an d New Ham pshire Insurance Com pany (collectively, “ASF Defendants”). 3 The Court granted the m otions in part and denied the m otions in part. 4 In their m otion for new trial or to alter or am end the judgm ent, J WK Defendants argue the Court should reconsider its order granting ASF Defendants’ m otions in lim ine in part. The Court’s order granting ASF Defendants’ m otions in part is an interlocutory order, as it did not adjudicate all of ASF Defendants’ claim s. Rule 54(b) of the Federal 1 R. Doc. 271. R. Docs. 271, 274. 3 R. Docs. 166, 167, 168, 169. 4 R. Doc. 251. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “any order or other decision, however design ated, 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.”5 Although the district court has broad discretion to reconsider an interlocutory order for any reason it deem s sufficient, 6 this power “is exercised sparingly in order to forestall the perpetual reexam ination of orders and the resulting burdens and delays.”7 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. 8 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.”9 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 5 F ED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). See United States v. Renda, 70 9 F.3d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 20 13) (citation om itted) (in ternal quotation m arks om itted) (“Rule 54(b) authorizes a district court to reconsider and reverse its prior rulings on any interlocutory order for any reason it deem s sufficient.”) 7 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 .). 8 See, e.g., id. at *3– 4 (“The general 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)). J WK Defendants argue that review under Rule 54(b) is less exacting an d that perhaps the standard is “as justice requires.” See Livingston Dow ns Racing Ass’n, Inc. v . Jefferson Dow ns Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 20 0 2) (“The exact standard applicable to the granting of a m otion under Rule 54(b) is not clear, though it is typically held to be less exacting than would be a m otion under Rule 59(e) . . . .” (citing M.K. v . Tenet, 196 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 20 0 1))). The cases cited by J WK Defendants clearly establish only that the tim e lim it for a Rule 54(b) m otion is different, which is not subject to debate and is not relevant to this case. J WK Defendants cite to no Fifth Circuit cases holding that the standard of review is different and less exactin g for a Rule 54(b) m otion . In any event, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted under either the Rule 59(e) standard of the lesser standard urged by J WK Defendants. 9 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). 6 2 order].’”10 “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.’”11 “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.”12 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 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. 13 J WK Defendants first request that the Court reconsider its ruling that J WK Defendants failed to give the ASF Defendants fair notice that their affirm ative defense of contributory negligence included negligence based on negligent hiring, supervision, retention, or training. 14 J WK Defendants also request leave to am en d their answer an d affirm ative defenses. 15 J WK Defendants do not present any new evidence or argue that there has been a change in controlling law. Instead, they argue that reconsideration is necessary to correct a m anifest error of law and to prevent injustice based on the Court’s 10 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, 20 0 9 WL 1565940 , at *8 (E.D. La. J une 3, 20 0 9) (Vance, J .) (quotin g Tem plet v. Hy droChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 – 79 (5th Cir. 20 0 4)). 11 Castrillo, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in origin al) (quotin g Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 479). 12 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 0 7-4833, 20 12 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 20 12) (Brown , J .). 13 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. 14 R. Doc. 271-1 at 3. 15 Id. 3 application of Rule 8. J WK Defendants have pointed to no cases holding that an affirm ative defense of com parative negligence based on a driver’s fault is sufficient to plead the affirm ative defense of com parative negligence based on negligent hiring, retention, or training. J WK Defendants argue in their m otion for reconsideration that they did not learn of the “significance of the docum ents produced, and specific facts underlying independent negligence claim s again st ASF first cam e to light in the deposition of Fidel Garcia on April 8 , 20 16,”16 and that the inform ation that cam e to light during the deposition put ASF Defendants on notice that the negligent hiring of Garcia would be an issue at the trial. 17 The Court notes that ASF Defendants’ m otions in lim ine were filed on J une 2, 20 16, 18 and J WK Defendants’ opposition was filed on J une 9, 20 16, 19 well after the April depositions. As noted previously, a m otion for reconsideration, “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].’”20 The Court’s application of Rule 8 is not in error, and reconsideration is not necessary to prevent an injustice. J WK Defendants’ request that the Court reconsider its ruling and their request that they be allowed to am end their answer an d affirm ative defenses at this late date are denied. 21 J WK Defendants also request that the Court reconsider its ruling on the exclusion of the term ination records of Garcia by Crane Transport, Inc. 22 Specifically, J WK Defendants wish to cross-exam ine Garcia with respect to his untruthfulness in filling out 16 Id. at 9. Id. at 12. 18 R. Docs. 166, 167, 168, 169. 19 R. Doc. 18 9. 20 Lacoste, 20 0 9 WL 1565940 , at *8 (quoting Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 478 – 79). 21 The Court rem inds J WK Defendants that the last-m inute continuance of the trial was granted at the request of J WK Defendants, and the Court m ade clear at that tim e that all pretrial deadlines were to rem ain in place. R. Docs. 249, 257. 22 R. Doc. 271-1 at 12. 17 4 his em ploym ent application with Crane Transport, Inc. The Court notes that the two specific docum ents in the Crane Transport, Inc. em ploym ent records that were excluded are the handwritten note stating, “Fidel Garcia hired 4-17 term inated 2-27-14 failed drug test”23 and a Medical Review Officer Report reflecting that Garcia tested positive for cocaine, 24 and the Court finds no grounds exist for reconsideration of that ruling. The Court notes further that ASF Defendants’ m otion in lim ine to exclude eviden ce relating to Garcia’s prior vehicle, driver, and traffic violations was denied. 25 If J WK Defendants wish to use docum ents other than the two specifically excluded to im peach the credibility of Garcia at trial, the Court will allow J WK Defendants to subm it those docum ents to the Court and all counsel ten days prior to trial seeking a pretrial ruling on their adm issibility for im peachm ent purposes only. Any oppositions to the use of docum ents for im peachm ent m ust be filed seven days before trial. Accordingly, J WK Defendants’ m otion for reconsideration is D EN IED as set forth above. N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 5th d ay o f Ju ly, 2 0 16 . ________ _____________ _________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT JU D GE 23 R. Doc. 166-2 at 85. Id. at 86– 87. 25 R. Doc. 251 at 9. 24 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.
