McNealy v. Becnel et al, No. 2:2014cv02181 - Document 244 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS re 241 Notice of Objection. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

Download PDF
McNealy v. Becnel et al Doc. 244 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A N EW TON MCN EALY, Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -2 18 1 D ARRYL J. BECN EL, ET AL., D e fe n d an ts SECTION : “E” ( 2 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff Newton McNealy’s Notice of Objection. 1 The Court will consider this m otion as a m otion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Defendants filed eight dispositive m otions. 2 On October 17, 20 16, the Court issued its order granting in part and deferring in part these dispositive m otions. 3 In Plaintiff’s m otion, he objects to various rulings of the Court with respect to the granting of certain dispositive m otions. 4 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.” 5 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].’”6 “The Court is m indful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgm ent after its entry is an extraordinary rem edy 1 R. Doc. 241. R. Doc.s 117, 119, 121, 138, 146, 210 , 215, 216. 3 R. Doc. 237. 4 R. Doc. 241. 5 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 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 0 7-290 4, 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)). 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com that should be used sparingly.’” 7 “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.”8 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. 9 Plaintiff Newton McNealy did not provide any support to justify his m otion for reconsideration under any of the factors listed above. “Mere disagreem ent with a prior ruling . . . does not support a m otion for reconsideration, and the Court, therefore, finds reconsideration is unwarranted.”10 IT IS ORD ERED that Plaintiff’s m otion for reconsideration 11 is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 7th d ay o f Octo be r, 2 0 16 . __________ __ __________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 7 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). 8 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 .). 9 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. 10 Lightfoot, 20 12 WL 711842, at *3. 11 R. Doc. 241. 2

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.