Falconer v. LeHigh Hanson, Inc. et al, No. 4:2011cv00373 - Document 24 (S.D. Tex. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rvazquez)

Download PDF

Falconer v. LeHigh Hanson, Inc. et al Doc. 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION GARETH FALCONER, Plaintiff, VS. LEHIGH HANSON, INC., et al, Defendants. § § § § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-373 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Gareth Falconer s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) the Court s dismissal of his case (Docs. 15, 16). Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for a motion for reconsideration, where, as here, a motion denominated as such is filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, it is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). In order to succeed, such a motion must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence. Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Hous., 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Falconer s motion does neither; instead, it simply restates his earlier arguments, adding that the Court s opinion is inaccurate and not well-founded. (Doc. 23 at 2, 6). This is insufficient to even approach the minimum standard for a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is DENIED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 7th day of August, 2013. ___________________________________ MELINDA HARMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1/1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.