Opinion
Civil Action 4:18-cv-615
09-26-2023
BARBARA MEIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UHS OF DELAWARE, Inc., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #933). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Defendants' motion.
BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2022, the Court rendered final judgment and dismissed this case (Dkt. #927). Twenty-eight days later, on January 12, 2023, Defendants filed the present motion to alter the judgment (Dkt. #933). On January 26, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a response (Dkt. #942).
LEGAL STANDARD
A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In Re Transtexas Gas. Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. at 479 (citing Clancy v. Emp'rs Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)). In the Fifth Circuit, Rule 59(e) standards “favor the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Under Rule 59(e), amending a judgment is appropriate (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) where there has been a manifest error of law or fact. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)). A motion under Rule 59 cannot be used to raise arguments or claims “that could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Id. (citing Marseilles Homeowners Condo. Ass'n v. Fid. Nat. Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008)).
ANALYSIS
Put simply, Defendants have failed to show they are entitled to the extraordinary relief provided for in Rule 59(e). Templet, 367 F.3d at 478. They have not shown (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
Equitable prejudgment interest is “available as a matter of course, absent exceptional circumstances.” Matter of Okedokun, 968 F.3d 378, 392 (5th Cir. 2020). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit makes clear there is “a strong presumption in favor of awarding prejudgment interest” and that “ [c]ourts should award prejudgment interest whenever a certain sum is involved.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Plambeck, 802 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Thomas v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 297 F.3d 361, 372 (5th Cir. 2002)). Because Defendants have not articulated exceptional circumstances, the Court finds that its decision should stand.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #933) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.