Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cruz v. Fulton

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 25, 2017

ELADIO CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF HIS MINOR CHILD, MELISSA CRUZ
v.
TRACY FULTON

         SECTION "F"

          ORDER AND REASONS

          MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Louis Koerner's motion for a new trial on the sanctions the Court imposed in its Order and Reasons, dated December 8, 2016. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

         Background

         This is a storied proceeding about one lawyer's bizarre antics toward the Court and his patent disregard of his professional obligations.[1]

         Koerner was brought on as lead counsel for a civil rights suit in this Court based on his “experience” in the federal forum. Despite having knowledge of the October 3, 2016 trial date months ahead of time, Koerner arranged for, and took, a tropical vacation days before the commencement of trial. The record establishes that counsel failed to comply with critical deadlines the Court set for documents due before trial. Plaintiff's counsel failed to timely deliver a bench book to the Court and to the defendant's counsel. This failure, coupled with other untimely requests from plaintiff's counsel, caused the Court to issue an Order on September 28, 2016 continuing the case's trial date. As a result, the Court ordered a contempt hearing for a determination of whether Koerner and his co-counsel should be held in contempt of Court.

         The Court held a contempt hearing on December 8, 2016. In its Order and Reasons the Court found Koerner in contempt of Court, in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and ordered him to pay all of the fees and costs that the defendant, Tracy Fulton, had incurred from September 3, 2014 until September 28, 2016.

         Koerner now moves the Court to reconsider its sanctions imposed on December 8, 2016.

         I.

         Motions requesting reconsideration of court orders generally fall under Rule 54(b), Rule 59(e), or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Higgins v. Cain, No. 07-9729, 2012 WL 3309716, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2012); Waste Mgmt. of La., Inc. v. River Birch, Inc., No. 11-2405, 2012 WL 876717, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 14, 2012); Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *3-4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010). Rule 59(e) provides that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Rule 60(b), on the other hand, applies to motions filed after the twenty-eight day period, but demands more “exacting substantive requirements.” See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1078 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

         II.

         “A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a judgment.'” Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). Because of the interest in finality, Rule 59(e) motions may only be granted if the moving party shows there was a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered previously. Id. at 478-79. Moreover, Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings. See id. at 479; Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010)(“[A] motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence' and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.'”)(citing Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). The grant of such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Indep. Coca- Cola Employees' Union of Lake Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 F. App'x 137, 143 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2004) (citing Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). The Court must balance two important judicial imperatives in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration: “(1) the need to bring the litigation to an end; and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.[2]

         III.

         The first, and most comic, argument Koerner urges is that the Court misinterprets its own deadlines. The Court's scheduling order, given to counsel months in advance of trial, instructed that a bench book of exhibits is to be delivered to the Court five working days before trial. A trial set to commence on Monday, October 3, 2016, would mean that the bench book would be due to the Court on Friday, September 23, 2016; that is, five working days before trial. Koerner ridiculously argues that the Court misapplies the meaning of “five working days” before trial; he argues that five ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.