Opinion
Civ. No. 99-601, SECTION "C" (5).
February 23, 2000.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's and Intervenor's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a). See Rec. Doc. 86. Plaintiff and Intervenor essentially argue that the Court has erred in its determination of how to handle the interest due on the award in the underlying suit, Finister v. Floridi, Civ. Action 97-1627. Defendant has filed opposition to the motion. See Rec. Doc. 91.
In Washington v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. La. 1998), this Court ruled that alteration or amendment of a previous ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is proper only upon movant's showing of: "(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and/or (3) the need to correct a clear and manifest error of fact or law." Id. at 311. Plaintiff's and Intervenor's present motion can be construed only under the third prong of this standard. However, Plaintiff and Intervenor fail to identify a "clear and manifest error of fact or law." A challenge under Rule 60(a), moreover, is inappropriate in this case. That Rule serves as a remedy for "[c]lerical mistakes in judgments . . . arising from oversight or omission." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). There were no errors in the judgment issued by this Court.
The Court finds the arguments of Plaintiff and Intervenor unpersuasive. They argue that this Court neglected to award frill interest on the underlying case. That is incorrect: the Court, in its discretion to award and allocate interest, found that interest on the underlying case should be allocated to Plaintiff from the date of judgment until date the instant case was filed. Therefore, Intervenor receives the full amount due him but not necessarily from the source he prefers. Moreover, when the Court stated that it would determine interest if the jury found liability, the Court did not mean that it would automatically acquiesce to the determination of interest preferred by Plaintiff and Intervenor. Furthermore, because the jury did not award the total amount of compensatory damages claimed, the Court finds it difficult to see any prejudice in the jury not having had the determination of interest before it.
Nevertheless, the Court still finds that the award of interest was in its discretion. Thus, the question was properly for the Court, not the jury. See generally Mem. Op., Rec. Doc. 84, at 4-6.
Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Plaintiff and Intervenor to Alter or Amend Judgment is hereby DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that there will be NO ORAL ARGUMENT on this motion.