David et al v. Signal InternationaL LLC et al

Filing 1359

ORDER AND REASONS denying 1355 Motion for Reconsideration (in limited part), as stated herein. Judge Zainey's case management plan remains in effect, as does this Court's ruling on Signal's motion to sever. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 7/15/2013. (NEF: MJ Knowles) (tsf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KURIAN DAVID, et al.,
Plaintiffs

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 08-1220

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Related Case:
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 12-557

SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Kurian David et al v. Signal International, LLC et al (Civil
Action No. 08-1220) (“David”)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the David Plaintiffs’ motion to “reconsider in limited part”1 the
Court’s order of June 11, 20132 in which the Court denied defendant Signal International,
LLC’s (“Signal”) motion to sever.3 For the reasons set forth below, the David Plaintiffs’
motion to reconsider is denied.
BACKGROUND
On March 16, 2012, while the above-captioned cases were pending in Section “A” of

1

R. Doc. 1355.

2

R. Doc. 1349.

3

R. Doc. 1196.

1

this Court, Judge Zainey considered competing case management proposals after denying
the David Plaintiffs’ motion to certify David as a Rule 23 class action. The David Plaintiffs
proposed that all twelve named plaintiffs be tried together, while Signal, along with other
David defendants, proposed that each plaintiff’s case be tried individually. Judge Zainey
determined that the initial David trial will involve five of the twelve named plaintiffs, with
three of those plaintiffs picked by the David Plaintiffs and two picked by Signal. See David
v. Signal Intern., LLC, No. 08-1220, 2013 WL 2631427, at *1 & n. 5 (E.D. La. June 11, 2013).
After the cases were transferred, this Court adopted Judge Zainey’s case management plan
on June 15, 2012. Id. Signal then moved to sever the David Plaintiffs’ cases, again asking
that each of the David Plaintiffs have a separate trial. Id. The Court denied Signal’s motion
to sever, noting that it was essentially a motion to reconsider Judge Zainey’s prior ruling
and that “[b]oth Judge Zainey and this Court have already evaluated this case and
determined that it will proceed under one case number with twelve named plaintiffs, and
that the first trial in this matter will have five named plaintiffs; three chosen by plaintiffs
and two chosen by defendants.” Id. at *3.
Fresh on the heels of the Court’s denial of Signal’s request for reconsideration (under
the guise of a motion to sever), the David Plaintiffs are now seeking reconsideration of
Judge Zainey’s case management plan. The David Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider
Judge Zainey’s March 16, 2012 decision to allow Signal to pick two of the plaintiffs for the
first David trial and this Court’s adoption of that plan in June 2012 and reaffirmation of
that plan in June 2013. The David Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration of that decision is
necessary to prevent manifest injustice. In response,4 Signal argues that the David
4

See R. Doc. 1358.

2

Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider is untimely and that allowing Signal to pick two of the
plaintiffs in the first David trial will not result in manifest injustice.
STANDARD OF LAW
A timely filed motion to reconsider an interlocutory order is evaluated under the
same standard as a motion to alter or amend a final judgment brought pursuant to Rule
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g. Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg.
Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at * 3–4 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010) (“The
general practice of this court has been to evaluate motions to reconsider interlocutory
orders under the same standards that govern Rule 59(e) motions to alter or amend a final
judgment.”). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within twenty-eight days of the entry of
judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). A motion to reconsider filed outside this 28-day
window is evaluated under the standards governing a motion for relief from final judgment
under Rule 60(b). Stangel v. United States, 68 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 1995) (“[a]lthough
motions for reconsideration or rehearing are typically treated as FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)
motions, motions for reconsideration or rehearing served more than [28] days after the
judgment are generally decided under Rule 60(b)”); see also Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma,
Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n. 2 (5th Cir. 2012) (depending on the time of filing, a motion to
reconsider “is evaluated either as a motion to ‘alter or amend a judgment’ under Rule 59(e)
or as a motion for ‘relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding’ under Rule60(b)”).
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment. In re
Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). “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
3

could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Schiller v. Physicians
Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and internal quotations
omitted). In deciding motions under Rule 59(e), the Court considers the following:
(1)

whether the movant demonstrates the motion is
necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon
which the judgment is based;

(2)

whether the movant presents new evidence;

(3)

whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent
manifest injustice; and

(4)

whether the motion is justified by an intervening change
in the controlling law.

Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4. “A Rule 59(e) motion should not be used to relitigate
prior matters that should have been urged earlier or that simply have been resolved to the
movant's dissatisfaction.” SPE FO Holdings, LLC v. Retif Oil & Fuel, LLC, No. 07–3779,
2008 WL 3285907, at *3 (E.D. La. Aug. 6, 2008). “A district court has considerable
discretion to grant or deny a motion for new trial under Rule 59.” Kelly v. Bayou Fleet, Inc.,
No. 06–6871, 2007 WL 3275200, at *1 (E.D. La. Nov. 6, 2007).
A Rule 60(b) motion also calls into question the correctness of a judgment. Under
Rule 60(b), the Court may “relieve a party from a final judgment” for one of six enumerated
reasons:
(1)

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2)

newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3)

fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;

4

(4)

the judgment is void;

(5)

the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed
or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or

(6)

any other reason that justifies relief.

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). The district court enjoys broad discretion in assessing whether any
of these reasons are present in a given case. Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d 341, 347 (5th
Cir. 1991). All Rule 60(b) motions must be brought within a “reasonable time” after
judgment, and motions brought pursuant Rule 60(b)(1), (2), and (3) must be brought
within one year of the judgment or order. FED. R. CIV. P. 60(c); see also Steverson v.
GlobalSantaFe Corp., 508 F.3d 300, 305 (5th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
The David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, while purporting to seek timely
reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the Court’s June 11, 2013 order regarding Signal’s
motion to sever, appears in actuality to seek reconsideration of a decision made by Judge
Zainey in March 2012, which motion would properly be governed by Rule 60(b). Indeed,
several of the arguments raised in the instant motion to reconsider were raised by the
David Plaintiffs in their proposed case management submission to Judge Zainey last year.
The Court need not dwell on this timing issue, however, because the David Plaintiffs have
not demonstrated that reconsideration of Judge Zainey’s case management plan is
appropriate under either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).
Case management decisions rest squarely within the discretion of the district court.
See, e.g., Ctr. for Biological Diversity, Inc. v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 704 F.3d 413, 432 (5th Cir.

5

2013). In fact, in the only case cited by the David Plaintiffs on this issue, In re Chevron
U.S.A., Inc., 109 F.3d 1016 (5th Cir. 1997), the Fifth Circuit stated that while it did not
necessarily approve of the district court’s case management plan, it was nevertheless loathe
to disturb the district court’s discretionary determination as to an appropriate case
management plan and the appropriate procedure for and use of an initial trial involving
only the claims of a sampling of plaintiffs from a larger group. Id. at 1018. The Fifth Circuit
went on to caution, however, that “before a trial court may utilize results from a bellwether
trial for a purpose that extends beyond the individual cases tried, it must, prior to any
extrapolation, find that the cases tried are representative of the larger group of cases or
claims from which they are selected.” Id. at 1020.
The first trial in this case, while it will have obvious ramifications for the case as a
whole, is not a “bellwether” trial. The Court does not intend the results of the first trial in
this case to be extrapolated to later trials. Nor does the Court intend the jury’s findings as
to the plaintiffs in the first trial to apply to anyone but those particular plaintiffs. The Court
also notes that neither the David Plaintiffs nor Signal intend for the first trial to have a
binding effect on the later trials or for the results of the first trial to be extrapolated in any
way. The Fifth Circuit’s cautionary statements about the preclusive effect of bellwether
trials does not control the Court’s discretionary case management decisions in this case.
Not only is the David Plaintiffs’ attempt to relitigate this issue by way of motion to
reconsider inappropriate, they also have not established that Judge Zainey’s case
management plan will result in manifest injustice. The Court, in its discretion, denies the
David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the David Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider be
6

and hereby is DENIED. Judge Zainey’s case management plan remains in effect, as does
this Court’s ruling on Signal’s motion to sever.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of July, 2013.
___
_____________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Court to Notify:
Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Knowles

7