Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-2472, c/w 03-2636 Section "C" (4).
June 28, 2004
Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(e) and Rule 23(c)(1)(C). Plaintiffs have also filed a request for oral argument.
IT IS ORDERED that there shall be no oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(e) and Rule 23(c)(1)(C).
Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(e) and Rule 23(c)(1)(C) is DENIED.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "motion for reconsideration" in those exact terms. See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). However, the Fifth Circuit has held that a motion to reconsider a dispositive pre-trial motion is analogous to a motion to "alter or amend the judgment" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for "relief from judgment" under Rule 60(b). See id. A motion for reconsideration is considered a Rule 59(e) motion if it is served within ten (10) days of the court's ruling and a Rule 60(b) motion if it is served more than ten (10) days after the court's ruling. See id. Plaintiffs' motion in this case was filed on June 14, 2004, less than ten days after the May 27, 2004 Order Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 6. Therefore, Rule 59(e) governs Plaintiffs' Motion for reconsideration.
In Washington v. CSC Credit Services, Inc., 180 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. La. 1998), rev'd and vacated on other grounds, 199 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2000), 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." 180 F.R.D. at 311.
In this case, Plaintiffs contend that, in two instances, the Court committed a clear and manifest error of law by looking at the merits of Plaintiffs' claims rather than only determining whether Plaintiffs' claims met the requirements set forth in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. First, Plaintiffs contend the Court improperly looked at the merits of Plaintiffs' claims by determining that specific causation would be a highly individualized inquiry. Second, they contend the Court improperly looked at the merits of Plaintiffs' claims by determining that Plaintiffs' claims were too small.
Plaintiffs' first contention is without merit. An inquiry into the question of whether specific causation is a highly individualized issue is not an inquiry into the merits of the case. Whether or not each individual Plaintiff was exposed to the substance at issue, what quantity of the substance each individual was exposed to, and whether it is more likely than not that the exposure specifically caused that individual's injury are all individualized specific causation issues. While attempting to answer those questions might be an inquiry into the merits of Plaintiffs' claims, simply recognizing them as individualized issues is not.
Plaintiffs' second contention is likewise without merit. The Court made no determination that, because Plaintiffs' claims were small, their claims were without merit. While the Court did briefly examine the merits of Plaintiffs' claims to determine whether the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the class action were warranted in this situation, the Court did not deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification because it felt Plaintiffs' claims were meritless. Instead, the Court stated that class certification was inappropriate because common issues did not dominate over the individualized issues and that, therefore, a class action was not a superior method of resolving this dispute.
As Plaintiffs' contentions that the Court improperly looked into the merits of their claim to determine the outcome of Plaintiffs' motion for Class Certification are based on improper interpretations of the Court's May 27, 2004 Order, the Court will not reconsider its Order. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not convinced the Court that an inquiry into the merits is completely improper when analyzing the issue of superiority.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or New Trial Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 59(e) and Rule 23(c)(1)(C) is DENIED.