Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-1828, SECTION: "R"(2)
March 8, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation's Motion for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Also before the Court is defendant's Motion to Stay Enforcement of Judgment.
By Order and Reasons dated November 14, 2003, this Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiff United States Fire Insurance Company and against defendant LWCC on the issue of whether Roger Dyson was a borrowed employee of Liberty Services at the time of his injury. After the Court's grant of summary judgment, for purposes of appeal, the parties entered into a Stipulation Regarding Damages, wherein LWCC agreed to reimburse United States Fire 50% of the medical benefits that it paid on behalf of Roger Dyson if United States Fire paid the medical benefits in accordance with the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Fee and Rate chedule. Defendant LWCC also stipulated that it understood that United States Fire had paid $1,924,780.33 in benefits on behalf of Dyson. On January 24, 2004, the Court entered judgment in favor of United States Fire, awarding it $962,390.16, as 50% of the benefits paid on behalf of Roger Dyson. In the judgment, the Court also held that all future damages would be governed by the parties' Stipulation.
Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation is the workers' compensation carrier for Liberty Services.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not formally recognize a motion to reconsider in haec verba. See Pryor v. United States Postal Serv., 769 F.2d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 1985). Nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit has held that a motion for reconsideration to reinstate a case may be classified under either Rule 59 or Rule 60, depending upon the time of filing. See id.; see also Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n. 14 (5th Cir. 1994) (en bane). Because defendant filed its motion within ten days of the Court's October 22 order, the Court treats defendant's request as a motion to reconsider under Rule 59. Therefore, defendant's request to reconsider the Court's order is a Rule 59(e) motion to "alter or amend the judgment". See Pryor, 769 F.2d at 285.
A district court has considerable discretion to grant or to deny a motion under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993); Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 173. A court's reconsideration of a prior order is an extraordinary remedy which should be used only sparingly. See Fields v. Pool Offshore, 1998 WL 43217, No. Civ. A. 97-3170, at *2 (E.D. La. 1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., 1995 WL 517120, Civ. A. No. 93-3590, at *1 (E.D. La. 1995). The court must "strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render a just decision on the basis of all the facts." Bohlin, 6 F.3d at 355. Courts in this district hold that a moving party must satisfy at least one of the following criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of fact or law; (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. See Fidelity Deposit Co. v. Omni Bank, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16649, 1999 WL 970526, *3 (E.D. La. 1999); Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 1999 WL 796218, No. Civ. A. 99-0628, at *1 (E.D. La. 1999); Burma Navigation Corp. v. Seahorse, 1998 WL 781587, No. Civ. A. 94-0795, at *1 (E.D. La. 1998); Fields, 1998 WL 43217 at *2.
Here, defendant argues that the Court should amend its judgment to reflect that the parties entered into a stipulation as to how damages were to be calculated and not as to an exact monetary amount. After a close reading of the Stipulation, the Court finds that defendant's argument has merit. The Stipulation filed by the parties into the record reflects that LWCC will reimburse to United States Fire 50% of the benefits paid on behalf of Dyson if United States Fire made them in accordance with the Louisiana Workers' Compensation Fee and Rate Schedule. The parties did not stipulate to an exact amount of damages. Therefore, in order to correct an error of fact, the Court grants defendant's motion and will remove the reference to an exact monetary amount from the judgment. The Court will further issue an amended judgment in accordance with this order.
As noted by defendant, because the Court has amended its judgment, defendant's motion to stay the enforcement of the Court's judgment is now moot.