Opinion
MDL NO. 1657, SECTION: L(3).
November 28, 2007
ORDER
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 12980).
Since the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically recognize a motion for reconsideration, such motions are treated as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a motion for relief from judgment or order under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ford v. Elsbury, 32 F.3d 931, 937 (5th Cir. 1994); Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). If the motion is filed within ten days of the rendition of judgment, it shall be governed by Rule 59(e); if the motion is filed after ten days of the rendition of judgment, it shall be governed by Rule 60(b). Lavespere, 910 F.2d at 173. In the present case, the Court entered its ruling on October 26, 2007. The Plaintiff's instant motion was filed on November 13, 2007. Accordingly, because the motion was filed more than ten days after the Court's ruling, it is subject to the standards of Rule 60(b).
Under Rule 60(b), a district court may reconsider an earlier order for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b).
In the instant motion, the Plaintiff does not asset any arguments in opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss, but nevertheless asks the Court to reconsider its decision. Upon a further review of the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court finds that it correctly resolved the prior motion. Furthermore, the Court finds that the Plaintiff has not set forth sufficient reasons under Rule 60(b) justifying a reconsideration.