Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-3572, SECTION "T" (1)
March 25, 2004
Before the Court is a Motion for New Trial and/or Motion to Recuse, filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, Ada D. Turner and Ronnie Turner (Doc. 46). The matter was taken under submission on March 24, 2004. The Court, having considered the arguments of the parties, the Court record, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND
The above-captioned matter came for bench trial on April 22, 2003 before this Court, without a jury. Plaintiffs, Ada D. Turner and her husband, Ronnie Turner, sought damages for personal injuries and loss of consortium allegedly arising from a boating accident which they claim occurred on June 3, 2001 in the Intracoastal Waterway in Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Turner suffered injuries when a wake, allegedly caused by the M/V 24 KARAT, owned by RPIA of Delaware, Inc. and operated by Neal Pleasant, struck the side of their boat. This Court found the Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof and, accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant, Neal E. Pleasant, RPIA of Delaware, Inc., and ABC Insurance Company, and against the Plaintiffs, Ada. D. Turner and Ronnie Turner, dismissing the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
A. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion for reconsideration. See, First Commonwealth Corp. v. Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans, 891 F. Supp. 290 (E.D.La. 1995), amended 896 F. Supp. 634, affirmed 85 F.3d 622. There are three grounds upon which a Court may grant a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment: (1) intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available becomes available, or (3) it is necessary to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising Pub. Corp. 825 F. Supp. 1216 (D.N.J. 1993).
In the instant case, plaintiffs have not established any of the grounds which would entitle them to a new trial or amended judgment. First, the plaintiffs have not presented this Court with any change in the controlling law governing this action. Second, they have not produced any evidence which has become available since trial. In their memorandum, plaintiffs simply request reconsideration of the time and distance line and other evidence and testimony which they submitted at trial. The evidence that the plaintiffs request the Court to revisit was previously submitted at trial and considered by this Court in rendering its judgment. Finally, plaintiffs have not alleged any error of law, nor have they alleged any facts which would indicate that such a Motion for New Trial should be granted to prevent manifest injustice. The plaintiffs question the Court's findings of fact, which, in the absence of manifest error, will not be disturbed. Samson v. Apollo Resources, Inc., 242 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 2001). For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to support the plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial.
B. MOTION TO RECUSE
28 U.S.C. § 455, which governs the obligation to recuse, states in pertinent part:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings.
If reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about judge's impartiality, then recusal is warranted.Health Services Acquisition Corp. v. Liljeberg, 796 F.2d 796, 800 (5th Cir. 1986), aff'd, 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988). Adverse judicial rulings alone do not support an allegation of bias under 28 U.S.C. § 455. Matasserin v. Lynch, 174 F.3d 571 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing In Re: Billedeaux, 972 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir. 1992)).
Plaintiff's have requested this Court recuse itself from this matter based upon "this Court's recusal in other actions in the USDC for the Eastern District; the ongoing investigation concerning the Court; and on the grounds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law reflect partially [sic] and bias in favor of the defendant and/or defense counsel in this case."
To suggest that the Court has any partiality for the defendant and/or defense counsel is utterly unsubstantiated given that the Court has often demonstrated its complete independence and the absence of any partiality or favoritism in prior cases involving defense counsel. Additionally, in a previous non-jury case involving one of plaintiffs counsel, Mr. Souhlas, where a substantial verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, there was no suggestion of any partiality by the court towards plaintiffs counsel, even though he has been a friend of this judge for over twenty years. This flagrant attack on the credibility of this Court is not only unfounded and without merit, but not supported by any evidence. This Court finds that no reasonable man would harbor doubts about this judge's impartiality, and therefore, recusal is not warranted.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for New Trial and/or Motion to Recuse, filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs, Ada D. Turner and Ronnie Turner, be, and the same is hereby, DENIED.