United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL.
NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
TRICHE MILAZZO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are two Motions for Reconsideration filed by
Plaintiffs (Docs. 356, 381), a Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Defendants Normand and Lopinto (Doc. 366), and a
Motion to Strike and a Motion for Leave to File a Declaration
by Defendants Joe McNair, McNair & McNair, L.L.C., and
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (Docs. 360, 362).
following reasons, the Motions for Reconsideration are
DENIED, the Motion to Strike is
DENIED, and the Motion for Leave to File a
Declaration is GRANTED.
lawsuit arises out of the participation by Plaintiffs Taylor
Carlisle and Emile Heron in Jefferson Parish's Drug
Court. Much of the background of this litigation has been
reproduced in Orders and Reasons previously issued by this
Court. The Court will nevertheless briefly discuss the
procedural history that lead up to the Motions it is
considering in this Order and Reasons.
March 20, 2018, Defendants Joe McNair, McNair & McNair,
L.L.C., and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
(collectively “the McNair Defendants”) filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On August 30, 2018, this
Court granted the McNair Defendants'
Motion. Plaintiffs then asked this Court to
reconsider its ruling. Attached to Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration was an Affidavit signed by Plaintiff Taylor
Carlisle. The McNair Defendants moved to Strike
Carlisle's Affidavit from the Record. The McNair
Defendants also moved for Leave to File a Declaration by Neil
Johnston in response to Plaintiffs' Motion for
25, 2018, Defendant Joseph Lopinto filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' claims against him. On September 25, 2018, this
Court granted in part Lopinto's Motion. Both
Plaintiffs' and Lopinto filed Motions for this Court to
Reconsider its August 30, 2018 Order and
Motion for Reconsideration of an interlocutory order is
governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b). “Under Rule 54(b), ‘the
trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision
for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of
new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of
the substantive law.'”
Court will first address Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of this Court's August 30, 2018 Order and
Reasons and Defendants' related Motion to Strike and
Motion for Leave to File a Declaration. Next, the Court will
address the parties' Motions for Reconsideration of this
Court's September 25, 2018 Order and Reasons.
Motions related to this Court's August 30, 2018 Order and
August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons, this Court ruled that
Plaintiffs' claims against the McNair Defendants arising
from conduct that occurred before April 27, 2015 had
prescribed. In so ruling, the Court found
specifically that Plaintiff Carlisle had constructive
knowledge of the facts necessary to trigger the prescriptive
clock for his negligence claims against the McNair
Defendants. In their Motion for Reconsideration,
Plaintiffs' challenge this finding by the Court, mostly
re-hashing and expanding on the same arguments ...