United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff LCP West Monroe, LLC's
(“LCP”) "Motion for New Trial or Altered
Judgment under Rule 59” [Doc. No. 74]. LCP moves the
Court to reconsider its May 18, 2018 Ruling and Judgment
[Doc. Nos. 58 & 59] granting Defendant Selective
Insurance Company of Southeast's
(“Selective”) Motion for Summary Judgment.
Selective opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 90].
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).
Depending on when it is filed, a motion seeking relief from a
final judgment may be construed under either Rule 59(e) as a
motion to alter or amend a judgment, or under Rule 60(b) as a
motion for relief from a final judgment. Id.;
Williams v. Thaler, 602 F.3d 291, 303 (5th Cir.
2010) (“When a litigant files a motion seeking a change
in judgment, courts typically determine the appropriate
motion based on whether the litigant filed the motion within
Rule 59(e)'s time limit.”). If a motion for
reconsideration is filed within 28 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. See Hamilton Rothschilds v. Williams
Rothschilds, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n. 19 (5th Cir. 1998).
Because LCP's motion was filed within 28 days of the
final judgment, the Court considers it under Rule 59(e).
See Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177
(5th Cir. 2012) (where the court considered plaintiff's
Rule 60(b) motion as a motion to amend judgment under Rule
59(e) because it was filed within the applicable 28-day time
or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an
“extraordinary remedy” used infrequently by the
courts and only in specific circumstances. Templet v.
Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
“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.'” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp.
Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863-64
(5th Cir. 2003) (other citations and quotation marks
omitted). “Relief under Rule 59(e) is also appropriate
when there has been an intervening change in the controlling
law.” Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567-68 (citation
59(e) motion should not provide an opportunity for movants to
rehash evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have
been raised before judgment. Templet, 367 F.3d at
478-79; see LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 412 n. 13
(5th Cir. 2005). In determining whether to grant a Rule 59(e)
request, the Fifth Circuit has indicated that district courts
should balance the need for finality against the need to
render equitable decisions based on all the facts. Edward
H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.
case, LCP contends the Court committed manifest errors and
that reconsideration is needed to prevent manifest injustice.
‘manifest error' is not demonstrated by the
disappointment of the losing party. It is the
‘wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.' ” Oto v.
Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)
(citation omitted); see also Guy v. Crown Equip.
Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (defining
“manifest error” in an appellate review context
as “one that is plain and indisputable, and that
amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling
LCP has failed to meet its burden under Rule 59(e). LCP has
not presented any newly discovered evidence, but rehashes
arguments and evidence that it previously submitted in
opposition to Selective's Motion for Summary Judgment.
None of these arguments, which were considered fully the
first time, provides a basis to alter or amend the Judgment.
the Court has since had the opportunity to fully address the
same arguments yet again in ruling on the United States of
America's Motion for Summary Judgment and finds, again,
that LCP has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
ORDERED that LCP's Motion for New Trial or Altered
Judgment under ...