ENSCO Offshore Company v. Salazar et al
Filing
390
ORDER AND REASONS granting in part and denying in part 379 Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI and for Amendment to Final Judgment on Count IV. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 8/4/2011. (caa, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ENSCO OFFSHORE CO., ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-1941
KENNETH LEE “KEN” SALAZAR,
ET AL
SECTION “F”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final
judgment on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI, and for amendment of the
final judgment on Count IV.
For the following reasons, the
plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Background
Challenging
government-imposed
impediments
to
deepwater
drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, Ensco Offshore Company sued the
government on July 9, 2010. Ensco amended its complaint twice. On
July 20, 2010, it expanded its complaint to root out other causes
of governmental delay; its January 13, 2011 amendment added a
second plaintiff, ATP Oil and Gas Corporation.
Together, ATP and
Ensco raised six counts arising under the Administrative Procedure
Act and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The last of these
counts was resolved on June 20, 2011.
This Court entered a partial final judgment on Count IV before
then, on May 20, 2011.
That judgment was amended on June 16, 2011
to reflect the terms of a Settlement Agreement Ensco reached with
the government.
In light of the complexity of this case, on June
1
28, 2011, this Court ordered:
The plaintiffs shall prepare a judgment, which
reflects this Court’s orders as well as
Ensco’s
settlement
agreement
with
the
government.
The judgment is due not later
than July 5, 2011.
Moving for entry of final judgment,1 the plaintiffs ask the
Court to include the following language in the final judgment on
Counts I, II, III, V, and VI:
All Counts
That in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, as between Ensco and the Federal
Defendants, each party shall bear its own
attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in
connection with this litigation. As between
all other parties, including ATP and Federal
Defendants, any award of attorney’s fees,
costs, and expenses shall be determined
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, Local Rules
54.2., 54.3, and 54.3.1, and applicable law.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 59(e), the Final
Judgment on Count IV (Doc. No. 356, amended by
Doc. No. 375) is hereby further amended by
adding the preceding two sentences.
(Emphasis added.)
The
government
opposes
only
the
inclusion
of
the
text
regarding ATP2 and proposes this alternative:
1
The plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on July 5,
2011. Finding that it did not comply with local filing rules, the
Clerk’s office marked it deficient. Before the plaintiffs could
correct the deficiency, the government expressed its objections to
the judgment as proposed, and the parties decided, independent of
any order of this Court, to engage in motion practice.
2
The plaintiffs and government agree to the terms of
the plaintiffs’ proposed judgment to the extent it summarizes the
Court’s previous orders on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI and Ensco’s
2
Counts I, II, III, V, and VI
That in accordance with the Settlement
Agreement, as between Ensco and the Federal
Defendants, each party shall bear its own
attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses in
connection with this litigation. As between
all other parties, including ATP and Federal
Defendants, any award of attorney’s fees,
costs, and expenses shall be determined
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54, Local Rules
54.2., 54.3, and 54.3.1, and applicable law.
Law & Analysis
In requesting final judgment on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI,
the plaintiffs correctly summarize the decisions of this Court on
those counts and include the variations introduced by Ensco’s
settlement
with
the
government.
The
disputes the content of Paragraph 7.
government
only
partly
To the extent that this
paragraph summarizes an aspect of Ensco’s settlement with the
government—the question of attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses—,
the Court agrees with the plaintiffs and the government that its
inclusion in the final judgment on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI, is
proper.
But, to the extent that the plaintiffs attempt to amend
the final judgment on Count IV through this language in the
judgment on the other five counts, the Court DENIES the plaintiffs’
motion.
I.
In seeking final judgment on Counts I, II, III, V, and VI, the
Settlement Agreement with the government. The Court GRANTS the
plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it addresses these issues.
3
plaintiffs move to amend the judgment on Count IV.
Because the
Court entered the final amended judgment on Count IV on June 16,
2011, and because the plaintiff filed his motion to amend it on
July 13, 2011, only twenty-seven days later, Rule 59(e) governs the
plaintiffs’ request to amend the Count IV judgment.
See FED. R.
CIV. P. 59(e) (“A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed
no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.).
“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 Transtex. Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581
(5th Cir. 2002)).
Because of the interest in finality, Rule 59(e)
motions may be granted only 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.
Id.
at
478-79.
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 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.’”) (quoting Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332
F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Simon v. United States, 891
4
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 Emps.’ Union of Lake
Charles, No. 1060 v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc., 114 F.
App’x 137, 143 (5th Cir. 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.”
367 F.3d at 479.
II.
Plaintiffs assert that the proposed language on fees, costs,
and expenses should be included to make clear that (1) under their
settlement, Ensco and the government are not liable to each other
for any fees, costs, and expenses; and (2) Ensco’s settlement with
the government does not hinder any other parties’ abilities to seek
fees, costs, and expenses from each other. The government responds
that the language the plaintiffs seek to add falls short of Rule
59(e)’s standard and stresses that its inclusion is unnecessary to
clarify ATP’s and Ensco’s respective rights.
The Court agrees.
The plaintiffs have not shown that they are entitled to Rule
59(e)’s “extraordinary remedy”:
they allege no mistake, no newly-
discovered evidence, no change in law, and no equitable reason why
it is necessary to further amend the Count IV judgment.
5
That fact
weighs with the principle that final judgments should not be
lightly disturbed.
And, the existing Count IV judgment, with its
silence
costs,
on
fees,
and
expenses,
does
not
muddle
the
plaintiffs’ rights.
The
parties’
memoranda
indirectly
divulge
an
unresolved
dispute over ATP’s entitlement to attorney’s fees, costs, and
expenses.
Neither party shows that resolving that dispute now is
proper; nor do they demonstrate that, as a matter of law, this
issue of fees, costs, and expenses is one which needs to be
included in the judgment.
Questions of timeliness and entitlement
to attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses that the parties raise now
are not properly resolved now.3
IT IS ORDERED: The motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part.4
New Orleans, Louisiana, August 4, 2011.
____________________________
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
ATP’s motion for costs, set for a hearing on the
papers on August 24, 2011, will give the Court an opportunity to
resolve this tangential but sensitive issue.
4
A judgment reflecting the terms of this Order will be
entered.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?