Opinion
Civil Action 20-00870-BAJ-RLB
08-24-2021
ERIN FONTENOT v. SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
RULING AND ORDER
BRIANA. JACKSON, JUDGE.
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration Of Court's Sua Sponte Order Remanding This Matter To State Court (Doc. 31), seeking reversal of this Court's August 19, 2021 Order remanding this action to state court due to Defendants' failure to establish the jurisdictional minimum amount in controversy. In support of their Motion, Defendants present evidence which, admittedly, they “did not attach ... to the removal pleadings.” (Doc. 31-1 at 3). Defendants know better: A Rule 59(e) Motion “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted).
Defendants' arguments and evidence could (and should) have been raised in their removal papers. As such, they cannot obtain relief under Rule 59.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion For Reconsideration Of Court's Sua Sponte Order Remanding This Matter To State Court (Doc. 31) be and is hereby DENIED.