Lee v. Omega Protein Corporation et al

Filing 93

ORDER AND REASONS denying 92 Motion to Alter Judgment or, in the alternative, Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/21/2011. (caa, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

WILLIE G. LEE

CIVIL ACTION

Versus

NO. 10-00387

OMEGA PROTEIN CORP. ET AL.

SECTION: “F”

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the defendants’ motion to alter or amend
the judgment, or in the alternative, for a new trial.

Plaintiff

asserts that the Court erred in excluding: (1) a jury instruction
on the defendants’ cure obligation, and (2) the question of cure
from the jury’s verdict form.

For the reasons that follow, the

motion is DENIED.
Background
This suit arose from an injury plaintiff suffered while
working on board his employer’s fishing vessel, trying to remove
fish from a net.

Plaintiff claimed he fell from the boat into

water and hurt his back and neck.

Plaintiff asserted numerous

negligence claims under the Jones Act.
The Court held a jury trial in this case between July 25 and
July 27, 2011.

Plaintiff lost.

The Court entered judgment on

August 25 in favor of defendants.
I.
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides

1

that a motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later
than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.
59(e).1

Fed.R.Civ.P.

Rule 60(b), on the other hand, applies to motions filed

after the 28-day period, but demands more “exacting substantive
requirements.” Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, 910
F.2d 167, 173-74 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds,
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1078 (5th Cir. 1994)(en
banc).

Because judgment was entered in favor of the defendants

on August 25, 2011, and the plaintiff filed his motion to alter
or amend that judgment on August 31, 2011, Rule 59(e) applies to
the plaintiff’s motion.
“A Rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of
a judgment.’”

Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th

Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581
(5th Cir. 2002)).

Because of the interest in finality, Rule

59(e) motions may only be granted if the moving party shows there
was a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered
evidence that could not have been discovered previously.
478-79.

Id. at

Moreover, Rule 59 motions should not be used to

relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence
that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings.

See

id. at 479; Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d

1

Rule 59 had formerly adopted 10-day periods for postjudgment motions; however, the rule was amended in 2009 to expand
the 10-day period to 28 days.
2

413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010)(“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 could, and should, have
been made before the judgment issued’”)(citing Rosenzweig v.
Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003)(quoting Simon v.
United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).

The grant

of such a motion is an “extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.”

Indep. Coca-Cola Employees’ Union of Lake Charles,

No. 1060 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., No. 04-30142,
2004 WL 2554847, at *4 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2004) (citing Templet,
367 F.3d at 479).

The Court must balance two important judicial

imperatives in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a
motion for reconsideration: “(1) the need to bring the litigation
to an end; and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis
of all the facts.”

Templet, 367 F.3d at 479.
II.

Plaintiff fails to meet the high standard that Rule 59
imposes for altering or amending a judgment.

The Court heard the

testimony at trial and determined that neither party submitted
evidence on the issue of maximum medical cure to justify a cure
instruction to the jury, or the inclusion of the cure issue on
the jury verdict form.

Dr. Roman’s testimony as to potential

treatment options for the plaintiff did not establish whether the

3

plaintiff’s condition is likely to improve or not.

It was

nothing more than a list of various possible alternatives.
The plaintiff also fails to show that he had no obligation
to make a maintenance and cure demand prior to trial, which he
had not done.

Plaintiff makes no showing of a manifest error of

law or fact.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s motion to
alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, for a new
trial is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, September 21, 2011

______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4