Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3754 Section "K" (5)
April 25, 2001
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is plaintiff Jeffrey Joyner's "Motion for New Trial and/or Amendment of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59" (doc. 199). The motion was set for hearing on March 28, 2001 and was taken on the briefs. The Court, having considered the pleading, memoranda and relevant law finds that the motion shall be denied for reasons that follow.
On March 6, 2001, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of ENSCO Offshore Company, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims against ENSCO (doc. 193). The motion for new trial was filed on March 13, 2001 and is not based upon newly discovered evidence, previously unreported case law, or manifest injustice. Rather, plaintiff disagrees with the Court's finding that ENSCO did not have garde over the allegedly defective wellhead that are alleged to have caused plaintiff's injuries as well as the factual and legal reasoning behind its findings with respect to the alleged negligence of ENSCO. Before deciding the merits of plaintiffs argument, the Court moves on to the relevant legal standards.
Although plaintiff's motion is denominated as a "Motion for New Trial and/or Amendment of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59", the court must clarify which subsection of the rule controls. Rule 59(a) governs both jury and bench trials. However, the Court initially disposed of defendant ENSCO through a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is not a trial, therefore plaintiff's motion is most appropriately designated a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). See St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Fair Grounds Corp., et al., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997) (motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) is proper motion to contest summary judgment); Patin v. Allied Signal Inc., 77 F.3d 782, 785 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1990) (motion to reconsider entry of summary judgment properly styled a Rule 59(e) motion); Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 175 (5th Cir. 1990) (motion that challenges prior summa!y judgment filed within 10 days of judgment is brought under Rule 59(e)).
In any event, reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy which courts should use sparingly. Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1, p. 124; Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E.D. La. 2/3/1998); Bardwell v. Sharp, 1995 WL 517120, *1 (ED. La. 8/30/1995). The remedy is so extraordinary that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has directed that the Rule 59(e) standard "favors denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment. . . ." Southern Contractors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Company, 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). As such, "the district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration arising under [Rule 59(e)]." Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. Tool Works. Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990); Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Under the Rule 59(e) standard:
the court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a . . .
. . . That discretion, of course, is not limitless . . . [t]wo important judicial imperatives clash: The need to bring litigation to an end and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts. The task of the district court in such a case is to strike the proper balance between these competing interests.Beanal v. Freeport-McMoran, 1996 WL 476879 (E.D.La. 1996)(citing Lavesnere v. Niagra Mach. Tool Works. Inc., 910 F.2d 167 (5th Cir. 1990); In re Ingram Towing Co., 1994 WL 660484 (E.D. La. 1994).
Generally, there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion can be granted:(1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which judgment is based, (2) the availability of new evidence, (3) the need to prevent to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) an intervening change in controlling law. See e.g., Motiva Enterprises LLC v. Wegmann, 2001 WL 246414 (E.D. La. 3/12/2001); Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E.D. La. 1/5/2000); Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E.D. La. 2/3/1998); Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1, p. 125-27. Finally, a Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction. See Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E.D. La. 1/5/2000); Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 1999 WL 777720 (ED. La. 9/29/1999).
In the instant case, the Court has carefully considered the assertions in plaintiffs motion and finds that plaintiff has for the most part recited the same arguments that were presented in his initial opposition. To the extent that plaintiff attempted to put forth new arguments, he has not persuaded the Court that it committed clear error of fact or law and mere disagreement with the Court's opinion is an insufficient ground to support relief. Plaintiff cannot simply relitigate his original motion or attempt to gain rehearing through Rule 59(e). The plaintiff has not convinced the Court that it made any errors of fact or law, let alone manifest errors, that merit reconsideration. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for new trial is DENIED.