SCB Diversified Municipal Portfolio et al v. Crews & Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 274

ORDER and REASONS denying 250 Motion to Reconsider Order Entering Summary Judgment in Favor of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP ("BSW") and to Alter or Amend Judgment under FRCP 59(e) as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 12/15/2011. (cab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SCB DIVERSIFIED MUNICIPAL
PORTFOLIO, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 09-7351

CREWS & ASSOCIATES, ET AL.

SECTION “N” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a "Motion to Reconsider Order Entering Summary
Judgment in Favor of Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, LLP ("BSW") and to Alter or Amend Judgment
under FRCP 59(e)" filed by Plaintiff, SCB (Rec. Doc. 250). For the reasons stated herein, IT IS
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff's motion essentially asks the Court to reconsider and set aside the adverse
summary judgment rulings that dismissed its claims against Defendant BSW. See Rec. Doc. 237.
As this Court has frequently explained with respect to such motions:
“In the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is no ‘motion for
reconsideration’ in haec verba. Harrington v. Runyon, 98 F.3d 1337,
at *1 (5th Cir.1996) (citing Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. & Tool Works,
Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir.1990)). “Any motion termed as such
will be treated as either a motion to alter or amend the judgment
under Rule 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Rule
60(b).” Id.
If a motion for reconsideration is filed within [28] days of the entry
of the order or judgment being challenged, “it will be treated as a
59(e) motion; if it is filed after [28] days, it will be treated as a 60(b)

motion.” Id. (citing Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885
F.2d 285, 288 (5th Cir.1989); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat
Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 667-69 (5th Cir.1986)).
A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.” Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accounts v. Transtexas Gas
Corp. (In re Transtexas Gas Corp.), 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir.
2002). It is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before
the entry of judgment, Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159
(5th Cir. 1990), but instead “serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing
a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473
(5th Cir.1989). A district court has “considerable discretion in
deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for
reconsideration under” Rule 59(e). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. &
Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir.1990). There are
considerations that limit this discretion, however: (1) the need to
bring litigation to an end and (2) the need to render just decisions on
the basis of all of the facts. Id.
“Generally, there are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion
can be granted: (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon
which judgment is based, (2) the availability of new evidence, (3) the
need to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) an intervening change in
controlling law.” Peterson v. Cigna Group Ins., No. Civ.A. 99-2112,
2002 WL 1268404, at *2 (E.D. La. June 5, 2002) (Duval, J.)
See Stanley ex rel Bankrupcty Estate of Gary Eugene Hale v. Trinchard, Civ. Action No. 02-1235,
2008 WL 3975628, *1-2 (E.D. La. 8/26/08) (Africk, J.); see also A.M.C. Liftboats, Inc. v. Apache
Corp., Civ. Action No. 06-10543, 2008 WL 1988807, *1 (E.D. La. 5/05/08) (Engelhardt, J.).
Here, Plaintiff has not shown that any of the aforementioned grounds for relief under
Rule 59(e) exist. No newly available evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law have
been identified. Nor is the Court persuaded that its summary judgment rulings rest upon a manifest
error of law or fact, or that, absent reconsideration of them, manifest injustice will occur. Rather,
Plaintiff's motion primarily re-urges arguments relating to the reasonableness of its employee's
2

reading of the offering documents. This the Court will not do.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of December 2011.

______________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3