Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-366 c/w 04-504, Section "J"(3).
October 20, 2004
Before the Court is Samuel Michael Schildkraut's ("Shildkraut") motion seeking reconsideration of this Court's judgment dated October 13, 2004. Therein, pursuant to the undersigned Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons dated October 13, 2004, this Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice. The plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is deemed submitted for decision without oral argument. For the following reasons it is DENIED.
Reconsideration of an order is an extraordinary remedy which courts should use sparingly. Wright, Miller Kane, Federal Practice Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1, p. 124; Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E.D. La. 2/3/98); Bardwell v. George G. Sharp, Inc., 1995 WL 517120 (E.D. La. 8/30/95). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit has directed that the Rule 59(e) standard favors the denial of a motion to alter or amend judgment. See Southern Contractors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Company, 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).
Courts typically consider several factors in exercising their discretion on a motion to reconsider, to wit: (1) whether the order should be amended to correct an error of law or fact so as to prevent manifest injustice; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) an intervening change in the controlling law. See, e.g., Motiva Enterprises LLC v. Wegmann, 2001 WL 246414 (E.D. La. 3/12/2001); Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E.D. La. 1/5/2000); Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217 (E.D. La. 2/3/98). A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate old issues that were resolved to the movants' dissatisfaction, to advance new theories, or simply to secure a rehearing. See Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum, 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 WL 6269 (E.D. La. 1/5/2000); Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 1999 WL 777720 (E.D. La. 9/29/99).
In the case at bar, the plaintiff simply reurges all of the issues previously determined in the context of this case. The Court notes that there was nothing "sudden" about its twenty-three page opinion. Suffice it to say, the memorandum opinion issued only after hearing and barrage of post-hearing submissions, the last having been filed by the plaintiff on September 21, 2004, following which the motion for summary judgment was finally deemed submitted. The Court has carefully considered and reconsidered the plaintiff's numerous requests for appointment of counsel. Moreover, the undersigned denied the plaintiff's request for inspection of Bally's Casino because this is not a "slip and fall" case; rather, the allegations are employment discrimination and retaliation, which have nothing to do with the design, structure or physical layout of the casino premises. Plaintiff has presented no new evidence, no "changed circumstances" or any other matter, justifying reconsideration of the judgment entered in this case.
Accordingly
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.