Lewis v. Noble Drilling Services, Inc., et al, No. 2:2015cv01018 - Document 35 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS - The Plaintiffs 28 motion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the Defendants 33 cross-motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan. (bwn)

Download PDF

Lewis v. Noble Drilling Services, Inc., et al Doc. 35 U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT COU RT EASTERN D ISTRICT OF LOU ISIAN A KIMBERLY LEW IS, Pla in tiff CIVIL ACTION VERSU S N o . 15 -10 18 N OBLE D RILLIN G SERVICES, IN C. AN D N OBLE SERVICES IN TERN ATION AL, LTD . D e fe n d an ts SECTION “E” ( 4 ) ORD ER AN D REAS ON S Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 1 and Defendants’ Cross Motion for Reconsideration. 2 The Court has reviewed the briefs, 3 the record, and the applicable law, and now issues this order an d reasons. On J uly 19, 20 16, the Court granted Defendants’ m otion to dism iss Plaintiff’s claim s for nonpecuniary dam ages 4 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 After finding that the Death on the High Seas Act (“DOHSA”) does not apply, the Court held that nonpecuniary dam ages, including dam ages for the pre-death pain an d suffering of Palm er Lewis, are not recoverable under the J ones Act and the general m aritim e law. In the Plaintiff’s m otion, she asks the Court to reconsider its ruling that nonpecuniary dam ages for Mr. Lewis’ pre-death pain and suffering are not recoverable under the J ones Act. In the Defendants’ cross m otion, they ask the Court to reconsider its ruling that DOHSA does not apply to this claim . 1 R. Doc. 28 . R. Doc. 33. 3 R. Docs. 28-1 and 33-1. 4 R. doc. 17. 5 R. Doc. 27. 2 1 Dockets.Justia.com 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.”6 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].’”7 “The Court is m indful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgm ent after its entry is an extraordinary rem edy that should be used sparingly.’”8 “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.”9 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. 10 In support of their m otion for reconsideration, the Defendants rely on argum ents 6 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). 7 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)). 8 Castrillo, 20 10 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in origin al) (quotin g Tem plet, 367 F.3d at 479). 9 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 .). 10 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. 2 m ade by the Plaintiff in her m em orandum in support of her m otion for reconsideration, which they say contain s a new interpretation of the allegations in the Com plaint. 11 When deciding the m otion to dism iss, the Court correctly considered only the allegations of the com plaint and found that DOHSA did not apply. 12 The Court cannot consider the argum ents of counsel for Plaintiff in deciding a m otion to dism iss. The Defendants have not established any of the circum stances under which reconsider is warranted and their m otion for reconsideration is den ied. The Plaintiff argues that reconsideration of the Court’s order is necessary to correct a m an ifest error of law and to prevent m anifest injustice because pre-death pain and suffering are recoverable under the J ones Act. 13 The Court agrees with the Plaintiff to the extent that she argues pre-death pain and suffering are recoverable under the J ones Act in the Fifth Circuit. 14 Plaintiff’s m otion for reconsideration is granted and Defendants’ m otion to dism iss 15 is denied insofar as it sought dism issal of Plaintiff’s claim for the predeath pain and suffering of Mr. Lewis. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s m otion for reconsideration is GRANTED and the Defendants’ cross-m otion for reconsideration is D EN IED . N e w Orle a n s , Lo u is ian a, th is 2 0 th d ay o f Se p te m be r, 2 0 16 . _____________________ __________ SU SIE MORGAN U N ITED S TATES D ISTRICT J U D GE 11 R. Doc. 33-1 at 2. R. Doc. 27 at 5. 13 R. Doc. 28-1 at 2. 14 De Centeno v. Gulf Fleet Crew s, Inc., 798 F.2d 138 ,141 (5 th Cir. 1986). 15 R. Doc. 17. 12 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.