Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. et al v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc.
Filing
41
ORDER AND REASONS denying 35 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 9/1/2011. (tsf, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SERVICIOS AZUCAREROS de
VENEZUELA, C.A., ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-4443
JOHN DEERE THIBODAUX, INC.
SECTION “F”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case
for a decision on the merits and a partial new trial.
For the
following reasons, the motion is DENIED.1
Background
The Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss after the
plaintiffs
failed
to
respond
to
this
Court’s
request
for
supplemental briefing on the issue of prudential standing and
choice of law. Because the plaintiffs did not address the issue of
prudential
standing,
the
Court
deemed
the
dismissed the plaintiffs for lack of standing.
issue
waived
and
The plaintiffs now
move the Court to reopen the case, asserting that (1) its failure
to comply with the Court’s order was a mistake, which this Court
1
Since filing this motion, the plaintiffs have filed a
notice of their appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. Local Rule provides: “If a party files a notice of
appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment — but
before it disposes of [a motion such as the one plaintiffs have
filed] — the notice becomes effective to appeal a judgment or
order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last
such remaining motion is entered.” Accordingly, this Court must
resolve the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen before the plaintiffs’
notice of appeal is effective.
1
should excuse; (2) they did in fact oppose the defendant’s motion,
though admittedly inadequately; (3) they also opposed defendant’s
motion, as evidenced by a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint,
which,
they
assert,
would
establish
one
of
the
plaintiffs’ standing under a theory of “honorary citizenship”; (4)
a Friendship Treaty issue would moot the standing issue and zoneof-interests issue if the Court finds that the Treaty applies to
honorary citizens of the City of Thibodaux, Louisiana who buys
goods and maintains American bank accounts; (5) parallel remedies
under Louisiana and Venezuelan law make this a very special and
very easy choice-of-law issue; (6) the zone-of-interests issue is
easy to resolve; (7) the one claim exclusively under Louisiana law,
an accounting claim, involves only witnesses and documents in the
United States; (8) Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 09-7125, 2011 WL
2652384
(D.C.
Cir.
July
8,
2011)
overruled
and
limited
the
application of the prudential standing doctrine even in overseas
tort cases where there is jurisdiction under the Alien Tort Act;
(9) the Court’s decision to dismiss without fact discovery and a
factual submission to the Court appear to set up a conflict between
the Court’s decision and certain decisions of the Fifth Circuit;
and (10) the jurisprudence involves yardsticks which the Court has
not so far considered.
The plaintiffs make no arguments that entitle them to the
relief they seek.
2
Law & Analysis
The plaintiffs do not explain under what Rule they seek
relief.
The substance of their motion makes clear they move for
reconsideration of this Court’s order granting the defendant’s
motion to dismiss.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
do not recognize a motion for reconsideration, the Fifth Circuit
has held that such motions, if filed within twenty-eight days after
entry of judgment, must be treated as motions to alter or amend
under Rule 59(e).
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).
On July 29, 2011, the Court granted the defendant’s motion
to dismiss.
Plaintiffs filed this motion on August 5, 2011.
Because the plaintiff filed its motion well within twenty-eight
days of entry of the Court’s order, Rule 59(e) applies to its
motion.
Because of interest in finality, motions for reconsideration
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
Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367
have been discovered previously.
F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004).
Rule 59 motions, moreover,
should not be used to re-litigate old matters, raise new arguments,
or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the
proceedings.
See id. at 479; Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d
3
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
The grant of such a motion is an
“extraordinary remedy” and “should be used sparingly.”
Indep.
Coca-Cola Employees’ 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).
In evaluating the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court
considered extensive briefing, and requested supplemental briefing
on two discrete issues.
The plaintiffs ignored the order and
instead elected to file an excessively long brief which did not
address
the
briefing.
issues
on
which
the
Court
ordered
supplemental
Because the plaintiffs failed to address issues this
Court deemed necessary to the resolution of defendant’s motion, the
Court treated those issues as waived and granted the defendant’s
motion on standing grounds. Here, the plaintiffs raise no argument
that shows they are entitled to the extraordinary remedy they seek.
They merely rehash arguments made in opposing dismissal and do not
adequately address the issue of standing which the Court initially
found troublesome.
Because the Court finds that the plaintiffs’
motion for reconsideration is without merit, IT IS ORDERED: That
the plaintiffs’ motion to reopen the case is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, September 1, 2011.
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?