Opinion
Civil Action 14-00776
03-18-2015
Healthsmart Benefit Solutions, Inc. v. Principia Underwriting, et al
Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Flectat Limited's ("Flectat") Motion For Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b) [Rec. Doc. 53] and HealthSmart Benefit Solutions, Inc.'s ("HealthSmart") Opposition thereto [Rec. Doc. 54]. Flectat requests that the Court reconsider its January 23, 2015 Memorandum Ruling and Judgment denying Flectat's Motion for Summary Judgment, R. 51. 52.
If a motion for reconsideration is filed within 28 days of the judgment or order of which the party complains, it is considered to be a Rule 59(e) motion; otherwise, it is treated as a Rule 60(b) motion. Because Flectat's motion was filed within 28 days of the January 23, 2015 Judgment, the Court must consider it as a motion to amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 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) to correct a manifest error of law or fact. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5 Cir. 2012). Such motions cannot be used to rehash the evidence or "raise arguments or claims that could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued." Id. While a district court has "considerable discretion" to grant or deny a motion under Rule 59(e), the Fifth Circuit cautions that reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an extraordinary remedy that courts should use sparingly. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5 Cir.2004).
As recently reiterated by the Fifth Circuit, "a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued. It also may be appropriate when there has been an intervening change in the controlling law." City of New Orleans Employees' Retirement System ex rel. BP P.L.C. v. Hayward, 508 Fed.Appx. 293, 301 (5 Cir. 2013). Here, Flectat has offered none of these. Instead, Flectat merely rehashes the arguments it previously raised. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Flectat Limited's Motion For Reconsideration [Rec. Doc. 53] is DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Lafayette, Louisiana, on this 18 day of March, 2015.
/s/_________
Richard T. Haik, Sr.
United States District Judge