United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
WHITEHURST, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
G. JAMES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court are two motions for reconsideration. [Doc.
Nos. 91, 92]. Plaintiffs Andrew Schmidt, Joseph Walker,
Thomas Edwards, and Thomas R. Edwards, Inc. move the Court to
reconsider and vacate its prior Ruling and Order [Doc. Nos.
89, 90], whereby the Court dismissed all claims of Plaintiffs
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 92] Defendant
Underwriters Severally Subscribing to Lloyds Policy PE
09030008 (“Defendant” or
“Underwriters”) moves the Court to amend the same
Ruling and Order, such that the dismissal is “with
prejudice” rather than “without
prejudice.” For the reasons that follow, the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs [Doc. No. 92] is
DENIED, and the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendant
[Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED.
Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide
for motions for reconsideration. Shepherd v. Int'l
Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir.
2004). Such motions are generally analyzed under the
standards for a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule
59(e), or a motion for relief from a judgment or order under
Rule 60(b). Id. Rule 59(e) governs when the motion
for reconsideration is filed within twenty-eight days after
entry of judgment; otherwise, the motion is governed by Rule
60(b). Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177,
182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). In this matter, because
the Motions for Reconsideration were filed within
twenty-eight days after entry of Judgment, the Court
construes the motions under Rule 59(e).
rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness
of a judgment.'” Templet v. HydroChem
Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571,
581 (5th Cir. 2002)). “[S]uch a motion is
not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised
before the entry of judgment.” Id. at 479.
Rather, amending a judgment is appropriate under Rule 59(e):
“(1) where there has been an intervening change in the
controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly
discovered evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3)
to correct a manifest error of law or fact.”
Demahy at 182. “Reconsideration of a judgment
after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
used sparingly.” Templet at 479.
district court has considerable discretion in deciding
whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for
reconsideration arising under Rule 59(e), such discretion is
not limitless. Id. at 479 (citing Lavespere v.
Niagra Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174
(5th Cir. 1990)). The Fifth Circuit has identified
two judicial imperatives relating to such a motion: “1)
the need to bring litigation to an end; and 2) the need to
render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.”
Id. (citing Lavespere at 174).
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
argue: (1) they set forth sufficient facts in their Complaint
to state claims against Defendants; (2) the Court erred in
finding the language published by Defendants with regard to
attorneys Thomas Edwards and Joseph Walker was not
defamatory; (3) the Court's failure to conduct any
analysis of whether defamatory language was used against
Plaintiff Schmidt warrants reconsideration; (4) Plaintiffs
adequately pleaded Defendants acted with malice; (5) the
Court erred in finding the statements at issue were protected
by a qualified privilege, because the facts alleged do rise
to the level of “reckless disregard” and
constitute an abuse of the privilege; (6) the Court erred in
finding Plaintiffs had not stated a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (7) the Court erred in
finding Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of tortious
interference with a contract; (8) the Court erred in finding
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract;
(9) the Court erred in finding Plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for punitive damages; and (10) the Court erred in not
imposing sanctions against Defendants. Defendant opposes the
motion, contending Plaintiffs have failed to show any
manifest errors of law or fact in the Court's Ruling, and
further asserting Plaintiffs' arguments are a “mere
rehashing of the arguments that were made in the briefing
regarding the Motions to Dismiss, ” and therefore the
Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. [Doc. No. 94 at
considered Plaintiffs' arguments, the Court finds no
basis to alter, amend or rescind its previous Ruling and
Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. No. 92] is DENIED.
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
moves the Court to amend its Ruling and Order “to
change the dismissal of this suit from ‘without
prejudice' to ‘with prejudice.'” [Doc.
91-1 at 3]. Defendant argues, “The grounds for the
Court's dismissal of all claims in this matter show that
the dismissal was one ‘on the merits, ' which
Defendant believe[s] warrants a dismissal with
prejudice.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original).
Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing whether to grant a
motion to dismiss with or without prejudice is within the
Court's “inherent powers, ” and therefore
Defendant's motion should be denied. [Doc. No. 95 at 4]
As the dismissal in this matter was an adjudication on the
merits, the dismissal should be with prejudice. See e.g.
Federated Dep 't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S.
394, 399 n.3 (1981); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561
F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977); Csorba v. Varo,
Inc., 58 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration [Doc.
No. 91] is GRANTED.
reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration [Doc. No. 92] is DENIED, and Defendant's
Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the Court's prior Ruling and Order [Doc.
Nos. 89 & 90] are ...