Schlesinger v. ES&H, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER AND REASONS denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 10/28/11. (mmv, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MARTIN SCHLESINGER

*
*
*
*
*

VERSUS
ES&H, INC., ET. AL.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 11-294
SECTION “B”(2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Defendant

Raymond

Pitts’

opposed

Rule

60

Motion

for

Reconsideration Order Denying His Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Rec. Doc. Nos. 41 and 55) is
DENIED.

Law and Analysis
a. Motion to Reconsider

It

is

well

recognized

that

reconsideration

is

an

“extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly . . .” A.M.C.
Liftboats, Inc. Apache Corp., 2008 WL 1988807 (E.D.La. 2008)
(quotation marks omitted).

A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule

59(e) motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence,
legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised
before the entry of judgment.

Templet v. HydrocChem, Inc., 367

F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).

There are four grounds upon which

a motion to reconsider 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., 2002 WL 1268404 (E.D.La June 5,
2002).

Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has held that a court may

only grant a motion for reconsideration on the basis of newly
acquired evidence if “(1) the facts discovered are of such a nature
that they would probably change the outcome; (2) the facts alleged
are actually newly discovered and could not have been discivered
earlier by proper diligence; and (3) the facts are not merely
cumulative or impeaching.” Infusion Res., Inc. v. Minimed, Inc.,
351 F.3d 688, 696-97 (5th Cir. 2003).

Here, Defendant Pitts has failed to demonstrate how a manifest
injustice will occur by the Court exercising personal jurisdiction
over him.

A motion for reconsideration should not be used to “re-

litigate prior matters that . . . simply have been resolved to the
movant’s dissatisfaction.”

Voisin v. Tetra Technologies, Inc.,

2010 WL 3943522, at 2 (E.D.La. Oct. 6, 2010)(emphasis added).

The

Court clearly demonstrated why it had proper personal jurisdiction
over Defendant Pitts in its August 29, 2011 Order and Reasons.
(Rec. Doc. No. 38).
primary

basis

Defendant

upon

Pitts

is

As the Court previously determined, the
which

it

because

has
of

personal

Pitts’

own

jurisdiction
actions,

over

“Movant

[Defendant Pitts] had the opportunity to limit his transactions

2

with Louisiana, but chose to interact with the state [Louisiana] by
allegedly conspiring with the other Defendants to extort Respondent
[Plaintiff]

into

withdrawing

his

complaint

by

virtue

of

the

telephone call to ES&H officials as is presumed for the purposes of
this Rule 12 motion.”

(Rec. Doc. No. 38 at 9).

As such, Defendant

Pitts’ current motion for reconsideration appears to be an attempt
to “re-litigate prior matters that . . . simply have been resolved
to the movant’s dissatisfaction.” Voisin, 2010 WL 3943522, at 2.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of October, 2011.

---------------------------UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3