United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
ERICK R. RIOS
WESTPORT LINEN SERVICES, LLC
ORDER & REASONS
WELLS ROBY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc.
17) filed by the Defendant, Westport Linen Services,
LLC (“Westport”) seeking the Court reconsider its
Order and Reasons (R. Doc. 16) with sole regard to
Plaintiff's § 1981 claims. Plaintiff Erick R. Rios
(“Rios”) opposes this motion. R. Doc. 18. This
motion was heard on the briefs on October 23, 2019.
Rios filed his pro se employment discrimination
complaint against Defendant Westport alleging, inter
alia, that his employer, Westport, repeatedly denied him
promotions to the positions of Maintenance Lead and
Maintenance Chief because of his Hispanic/Latino origin. R.
Doc. 1. Rios further alleged that Westport refused to
consider him for promotion for the position of Maintenance
Lead purportedly due to his several tardy violations despite
others also arriving late. R. Doc. 1-5, p. 6. As a result of
these denied promotions, Rios resigned from his employment
with Westport, which he contended constitutes constructive
discharge. R. Doc. 1-5, p. 7-8.
September 30, 2019, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title
VII claims with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). R. Doc. 16, p. 14. The Court further
ordered that Plaintiff's § 1981 claim remains and
shall proceed forward as not the subject of Defendant's
October 4, 2019, Defendant Westport filed its instant Motion
for Reconsideration contending that Plaintiff's §
1981 claim was in fact the subject of Westport's Motion
to Dismiss and should be dismissed with prejudice for the
same reasons this Court dismissed Plaintiff's Title VII
claims. R. Doc. 17, p. 1. Furthermore, as Plaintiff's
§ 1981 claim is the sole remaining claim in the lawsuit,
Westport seeks an order from this Court dismissing
Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in its entirety.
in opposition, concedes that his Title VII claims were
properly dismissed for technical issues in the pleadings. R.
Doc. 18. Nonetheless, Plaintiff contends that Defendant
provides no legal arguments with regard to Plaintiff's
§ 1981 claims beyond conclusory desire that they be
dismissed in the same matter as Plaintiff's Title VII
claims. Id. Plaintiff ultimately contends that
Defendant has provided no legal basis for dismissal of his
§ 1981 claims, and, as such, his § 1981 claims
should survive. Id.
reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant
Westport's Motion for Reconsideration. Moreover, after
thoughtful reconsideration, the Court dismisses Plaintiff
Rios's First Amended Complaint in its entirety, to
include Plaintiff's § 1981 claim based on hostile
Standard of Review
Reconsideration of Defendant's Motion to
the Fifth Circuit has noted that the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure (“Rules”) do not recognize a motion for
reconsideration, it has consistently recognized that such a
motion may challenge a judgment or order under Rules 54(b),
59(e), or 60(b). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool
Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir.1990). Rules 59
and 60, however, apply only to final judgments. When a party
seeks to revise an order that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims among all of the parties, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b) controls. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). See also
Helena Labs. Corp. v. Alpha Sci. Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d
538, 539 (E.D. Tex. 2007), aff'd, 274 Fed.Appx.
900 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (motion for reconsideration under Rule
59(e) treated as under Rule 54(b) because reconsideration of
partial summary judgment order was sought, and no final
judgment had yet been entered in the case). The Rule states:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment ...