United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
L. HAYES MAG. JUDGE.
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
here is the Motion to Reconsider Ruling on Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (styled “Defendants'
Pretrial Memorandum Regarding an Outstanding Issue of
Law”) [Doc. No. 174] filed by Defendants Mabe Trucking
Co., Inc., (“Mabe”); Richard Agee
(“Agee”); and National Interstate Insurance
Company seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff David Franco's
(“Franco”) claim as untimely. Franco has filed an
opposition [Doc. No. 175]. Defendants have filed a reply to
the opposition [Doc. No. 176]. For the reasons set forth
herein, Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Ruling is
GRANTED and Franco's claim is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as untimely.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
case arises out of a motor vehicle accident. On November 24,
2015, Franco's vehicle was involved in a collision with
an 18-wheel truck owned by Mabe and being driven by Agee on
Interstate 20 in Louisiana.
November 22, 2016, Franco filed suit against Mabe in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division, alleging diversity of citizenship
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). [Doc. No. 1].
Franco did not serve Mabe until January 20, 2017.
February 10, 2017, Mabe moved to either dismiss or transfer
the proceeding, arguing that the Eastern District of Texas
lacked personal jurisdiction and was an improper venue. [Doc.
No.4]. On June 13, 2017, Judge Roy S. Payne, a United States
Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, granted
Mabe's motion and transferred the proceeding to this
Court. [Doc. No. 13]. Judge Payne opined: “Because the
Court lacks personal jurisdiction over [Mabe], and hence
venue under § 1391(b)(1) is improper, the Court finds it
suitable in the ‘interests of justice' to transfer
the case to the Western District of Louisiana, the district
where the accident occurred. See 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a).” Id. at 2. On July 6, 2017, the suit
was transferred to this Court.
January 23, 2018, Mabe filed a Motion for Summary Judgment,
moving to dismiss Franco's claim on the basis of
prescription. [Doc. No. 43]. On March 19, 2018, Judge Robert
G. James denied Mabe's motion. [Doc. Nos. 63, 64].
3, 2018, Franco filed a Supplemental and Amended Complaint
adding Agee and National Interstate Insurance Company as
Defendants [Doc. No. 72].
April 1, 2019, Defendants filed the instant motion [Doc. No.
174] asking this Court to reconsider the Ruling issued on
March 19, 2018 [Doc. No. 63] and raising an additional issue.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Judgment “shall [be] grant[ed] . . . if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
“material” if proof of its existence or
nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under
applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a
material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is
such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for
the nonmoving party. Id.
moving party can meet the initial burden, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party to establish the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact for trial. Norman v.
Apache Corp., 19 F.3d 1017, 1023 (5th Cir. 1994). The
nonmoving party must show more than some metaphysical doubt
as to the material facts. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). In
evaluating the evidence tendered by the parties, the Court
must accept the evidence of the nonmovant as credible and
draw all justifiable inferences in its favor.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.