United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
JOE W. AGUILLARD
L. HORNSBY MAG. JUDGE
A. DOUGHTY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff Joe W. Aguillard's
(“Aguillard”) Motion for Rehearing and/or
Reconsideration of Ruling Granting Defendant's Exception
of Prescription on Plaintiff's Claims for Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress and Incorporated Supporting
Memorandum [Doc. No. 134]. Aguillard moves the Court to
reconsider its September 27, 2019 Ruling and Judgment [Doc.
Nos. 130 and 131] granting Defendant Louisiana College's
(“LC”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc.
No. 103] and dismissing Aguillard's intentional
infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) claim
on the basis of prescription. LC has filed an opposition
[Doc. No. 136].
parties are in agreement that the Court's September 27,
2019 Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 130 and 131] resolved
Aguillard's last remaining claim; therefore, it is a
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion
for reconsideration. Bass v. U.S. Dep't of
Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). The United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held
nonetheless that if such a motion is filed within
twenty-eight days after entry of the judgment from which
relief is being sought, the motion will be treated as motion
to alter or amend under Rule 59(e). Hamilton Plaintiffs
v. Williams Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n.10 (5th Cir.
1998); see alsoFed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because
Aguillard filed the instant motion on October 11, 2019, the
motion will be subject to the standards for Rule 59(e).
59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a
judgment. In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571,
581 (5th Cir. 2002). Rule 59(e) serves “‘the
narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors
of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.'” Basinkeeper v. Bostick, 663
Fed.Appx. 291, 294 (5th Cir. 2016)(quoting Waltman v.
Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)).
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.'”
Berezowsky v. Rendon Ojeda, 652 Fed.Appx. 249, 251
(5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012)).
Rule 59(e) has a “narrow purpose, ” the Fifth
Circuit has “observed that ‘[r]econsideration of
a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.'” Id. (quoting
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th
Cir. 2004)). Thus, “a motion for reconsideration
‘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.
(quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479).
seeks a reconsideration or rehearing on three grounds: (1)
the Court erroneously ignored and prejudicially failed to
apply Bustamento v. Tucker, 670 So.2d 532 (La.
1992); (2) the Court erroneously failed to recognize that he
is pursuing a “retaliatory hostile work
environment” claim; and (3) the Court erred in
concluding that the relevant period of time for determining
whether LC's conduct was “continuous” was
from May 3, 2015, to March 31, 2016. The Court will consider
each argument in turn.
asserts first that the Court erroneously ignored and
prejudicially failed to apply Bustamento and its
progeny, which hold that the continuous nature of alleged
misconduct has the dual effect of rendering such conduct
tortious and of delaying the commencement of prescription. He
asserts that LC engaged in a pattern of on-going, repeated
harassment here, as in Bustamento, which caused him
serious emotional injury.
Bustamento Court found:
The rationale underlying our generalization in
White, supra, regarding repeated conduct is that
conduct which, viewed as an isolated incident, would not be
outrageous or would not be likely to cause serious damage,
can become such when repeated over a period of time.
See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46,
Comment(j) (noting that both the intensity and the duration
of the distress are factors to be considered in determining
whether a pattern of conduct is actionable). This has been
characterized as a sliding scale approach under which even
relatively "mild" harassment may become tortious if
continued over a substantial time period. [Citation omitted]
670 So.2d. at 538. The Bustamento Court further
Simply put, we find the continuous nature of the alleged
conduct has the dual effect of rendering such conduct
tortious and of delaying ...