LLOG Exploration Company, L.L.C. v. Signet Maritime Corporation, Inc., No. 2:2014cv02791 - Document 86 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS denying 78 Motion to Alter Judgment. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF

LLOG Exploration Company, L.L.C. v. Signet Maritime Corporation, Inc. Doc. 86 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A LLOG EXPLORATION COMPAN Y, L.L.C., Plain tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N O. 14 -2 79 1 SIGN ET MARITIME CORPORATION , IN C., D e fe n d an t SECTION : “E” ( 3 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is a Rule 59 m otion to am end judgm ent filed by Signet Maritim e Corporation (“Signet”). 1 LLOG Exploration Com pany (“LLOG”) opposes the m otion. 2 For the reasons that follow, the m otion is D EN IED . BACKGROU N D On Decem ber 10 , 20 14, LLOG filed a Com plaint for Declaratory J udgm ent with respect to its obligation s to Signet under certain contractual docum ents. 3 Signet answered the Com plaint and asserted a counterclaim for breach of contract on J anuary 21, 20 15. 4 This m atter proceeded to a two-day bench trial on Novem ber 9, 20 15. Based on the eviden ce presented at trial, the Court entered J udgm ent in favor of LLOG and against Signet. 5 The Court awarded LLOG “attorneys’ fees, court costs, and other defense costs, in accordance with Paragraph 29 of the Contract” between the parties. 6 On Decem ber 23, 20 15, Signet filed the instant m otion to am end the Court’s J udgment, arguing LLOG is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees under the contract between the parties. 7 1 R. Doc. 78 . R. Doc. 3 R. Doc. 1. 4 R. Doc. 11. 5 See generally R. Docs 75, 76. 6 See R. Doc. 75 at 16– 17; R. Doc. 76. 7 R. Doc. 78 . 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com LAW AN D AN ALYSIS Signet seeks to am end the Court’s J udgm ent under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 The Court treats the m otion as one filed under Rule 59(e). A Rule 59(e) m otion “calls into question the correctness of a judgm ent,” and courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant such a m otion. 9 To prevail on a Rule 59(e) m otion, the m ovant m ust establish at least one of the following: (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a m anifest error in law or fact. 10 Signet does not cite any of these factors in its m otion, but the only factor which could possibly apply to this case is the third, i.e., whether awarding LLOG attorneys’ fees under its Contract with Signet am ounts to a m anifest error in law or fact. Paragraph 29 of the Contract provides: Should either party com m ence legal proceedings to enforce any of its rights under the Agreem ent, including without lim itation the right to receive paym ent in accordance with the term s of this Agreem ent, then conditioned upon obtaining the judgm ent in its favor to enforce said rights, that party shall be entitled to additionally recover from the other party all expenses it incurred in enforcin g those rights, including without lim itation all reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and other defense costs. 11 Signet conten ds that, although LLOG prevailed on its Com plaint for Declaratory J udgm ent, the declaratory judgm ent action was not a legal proceeding to “enforce” rights under the Contract. Signet notes LLOG “sued for a declaratory judgm ent to ‘declare the rights, liabilities and other legal relationships under the Contract,’” not to “enforce any of 8 R. Doc. 78 at See, e.g., In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 30 3 F.3d 571, 58 1 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). 10 Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 20 0 5). See also Schiller v. Phy sicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 20 0 3); N orris v. Causey , No. 14-1598 , 20 16 WL 311746, at *4 (E.D. La. J an . 26, 20 16). 11 Trial Exhibit 1. 9 2 its rights under the Contract.”12 For that reason, Signet argues LLOG is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. To prevail on this argum ent, Signet m ust establish, as noted above, that awarding attorneys’ fees to LLOG under the Contract am ounts to a m anifest error of fact or law. “Manifest error” is one that “is plain and indisputable, and that am ounts to a com plete disregard of the controlling law.”13 Signet has not pointed to any controlling Fifth Circuit precedent. As a result, Signet has not established that the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees to LLOG was a m anifest error of law or fact or, stated differently, that the award of attorneys’ fees was a “com plete disregard of the controlling law.” The parties listed as an uncontested m aterial fact in the Pretrial Order that “[t]he contract between LLOG and Signet allows the prevailing party to recover its attorneys’ fees.”14 The parties also entered into an identical joint stipulation, i.e., that “[t]he contract between LLOG and Signet allows the prevailing party to recover its attorneys’ fees.”15 Signet alleged an entitlem ent to attorneys’ fees under the Contract in its proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 16 LLOG likewise alleged an entitlem ent to attorneys’ fees in its proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 17 A Rule 59 m otion is not the appropriate vehicle to relitigate LLOG’s entitlem ent to attorneys’ fees. It is well established that “[a] party m ay not use a Rule 59(e) m otion to relitigate prior 12 R. Doc. 78 -1 at 2. See, e.g., Pechon v. La. Dep’t of Health and Hospitals, No. 0 8-0 664, 20 0 9 WL 20 46766, at *4 (E.D. La. J uly 14, 20 0 9) (quotin g Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir. 20 0 4); Bank One, Texas, N .A. v . F.D.I.C., 16 F. Supp. 2d 698 , 713 (N.D. Tex. 1998 ) (“[A] m an ifest error is an obvious m istake or departure from the truth.”) (internal quotation m arks om itted)). 14 R. Doc. 67 at 9. 15 R. Doc. 47 at 2. 16 R. Doc. 57 at 11. 17 R. Doc. 55 at 8. 13 3 m atters that should have been urged earlier or that sim ply have been resolved to the m ovant’s dissatisfaction.”18 CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, Signet’s m otion to am end judgm ent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 be and hereby is D EN IED . N e w Orle an s , Lo u is ian a, th is 3 rd d ay o f Fe bru ary, 2 0 16 . ________________________________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 18 Sanchez v. Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office, No. 0 8 -1227, 20 10 WL 4340 333, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 20 10 ) (quoting In re Self, 172 F. Supp. 2d 813, 816 (W.D. La. 20 0 1)) (internal quotation m arks om itted); W arren v . Quarterm an , No. 3:0 8-CV-1228-N, 20 0 9 WL 77694, at *1 (N.D. Tex. J an. 12, 20 0 9) (quoting Peterson v. Cigna Grp. In s., No. 99-2112, 20 0 2 WL 126840 4, at *2 (E.D. La. J une 5, 20 0 2)) (internal quotation m arks om itted). 4

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.