Opinion
Civil Action No. 00-0597, Section "C" (3).
November 13, 2001.
MINUTE ENTRY
ORDER REASONS
Before the Court is a submission by Plaintiff titled "PLAINTIFF OBJECTS TO ORDER AND REASONS." Rec. Doc. 51. Plaintiff objects to the Court's October 23, 2001, Order Reasons dismissing a panoply of Plaintiffs claims. See Rec. Doc. 49. The Court shall characterize Plaintiffs request as a Motion to Reconsider its Order Reasons.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "Motion to Reconsider" 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 served seven days after the Court rendered its decision. See Rec. Doc. 51. Therefore, Rule 59(e) governs Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration.
In Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., 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 the 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.
First, Plaintiff refers to no intervening changes of controlling law. Second, she has not suggested any new evidence is available. Third, although Plaintiff asserts that the Order contains numerous errors of fact and law, upon thorough review of its Order, the Court is satisfied that it committed no clear and manifest errors of either fact or law. To the extent that Plaintiff submits new arguments, they are adequately addressed by the Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider is hereby DENIED.