United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
APICAL INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.
CONSENT OF THE PARTIES
RULING ON MOTION
PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pending is the motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 262),
which was filed by the defendants, Apical Industries, Inc.
and Offshore Helicopter Support Services, Inc., with regard
to the court's recent ruling on motions in limine (Rec.
Doc. 256). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
is no motion to reconsider found anywhere in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit has
instructed that such motions should be considered either as
Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a judgment or as Rule
60(b) motions for relief from a judgment, depending on the
length of time between the issuance of the order and the
filing of the motion for reconsideration.
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a
motion for reconsideration, such a motion may be considered
either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment or a
Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment or order.
Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d
367, 371 n. 10 (5th Cir.1998). If the motion is
filed within ten days of the judgment or order of which the
party complains, it is considered a Rule 59(e) motion;
otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. Id.
(internal citations omitted). Because plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the
district court's order dismissing the suit, it is treated
as a Rule 60(b) motion.” Shepherd v. International
Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n. 1 (5th Cir.
2004). See, also, e.g., Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. &
Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir.
1990) (holding that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment
ruling should be construed as a Rule 59(e) motion if it is
served within ten days after the rendition of the judgment,
but a Rule 60(b) motion if served after that); Charles
L.M. v. Northeast Indep. School Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 869
(5th Cir. 1989) (treating a motion to reconsider a
dismissal order served within ten days of the order's
issuance as a Rule 59(e) motion).
case, the defendants are seeking reconsideration of this
Court's ruling on motions in limine, which was issued on
October 26, 2017. The motion for reconsideration was filed
more than ten days later, on November 9, 2017. Therefore, the
motion for reconsideration must be treated as a Rule 60(b)
60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out five
bases for relief from a final judgment: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or
misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; and
(5) satisfaction, discharge, or release of the judgment. Rule
60(b)(6) also allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for “any other reason justifying relief from
the operation of the judgment.” Relief under Rule
60(b)(6) is granted only when it is not covered by the five
enumerated grounds and when “extraordinary
circumstances” are present. Batts v. Tow-Motor
Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir.
1995). “The district court enjoys considerable
discretion when determining whether the movant has satisfied
any of these Rule 60(b) standards.” Teal v. Eagle
Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th Cir.
motion to reconsider may not be used to relitigate matters,
raise arguments, or submit evidence that could have been
presented before the judgment or order was entered. See 11
Wright & Miller § 2810.1 at 127-28 (addressing Rule
59(e) motions in particular). “A party seeking
reconsideration must show more than disagreement with the
court's decision and recapitulation of the same cases and
arguments already considered by the court.” Texaco
Exploration & Prod., Inc. v. Smackco, Ltd., No. Civ.
A. 98-2293, 1999 WL 539548, at *1 (E.D. La. July 26, 1999)
(citing Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal,
Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995)). A motion
for relief under Rule 60(b) is “not a substitute for
the ordinary method of redressing judicial
error-appeal.” Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.,
699 F.2d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1983).
case, the defendants argued solely that this Court's
reasons for ruling as it did were incorrect. More
particularly, the defendants argued (1) that evidence
regarding “what Apical knew, when they knew it, and
what was represented to PHI” is not relevant to the
breach of contract claim against OHS, (2) that evidence
concerning “actions Apical should have taken” or
“the alleged insufficiency of the actions of
Apical” are irrelevant to the breach of contract claim
against OHS, and (3) that expert evidence concerning industry
standards should not be admitted at trial. These are not new
arguments, and the defendants have not identified any
extraordinary circumstances necessitating that these
arguments be relitigated. This Court stands by the reasoning
articulated in its earlier ruling, and declines the
defendants' invitation to alter that ruling in any way.
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants' motion for
reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 262), when construed as a ruling