D&S Marine Services, LLC v. Lyle Properties, LLC
Filing
83
ORDER and REASONS denying 69 Motion to Alter Judgment.Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 5/4/2012. (mm, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
D&S MARINE SERVICES, LLC
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 11‐508
LYLE PROPERTIES, LLC
SECTION “H” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
The matter before the Court is Third‐Party Defendant Lawson Environmental Services’ LLC
Motion to Reconsider or Alternatively to Alter or Amend this Court’s Order on D&S Marine’s
Motion for Summary Judgment on Contractual Damages. (Doc. 69.) For the following reasons,
Lawson Environmental Services, LLC’s Motion is hereby DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Lawson Environmental Services, LLC (“Lawson”), the Third‐Party Defendant, had a direct
contract with BP Exploration & Production (“BP”) to perform work on the oil spill in the aftermath
of the blowout on the Deepwater Horizon in April 2010. Lawson subsequently contracted with Lyle
‐1‐
Properties, LLC (“Lyle”), the defendant, in order to obtain a boat to use while performing their work
with BP. Lyle then contracted with D&S Marine Services, LLC (“D&S Marine”), the plaintiff, for
charter of the M/V DUSTIN D so that Lyle could fulfill their contract with Lawson.
The term of the Master Time Charter and attached Letter Agreement between Lyle and D&S
Marine was for a period from July 12, 2010 to January 12, 2011 at a rate of $4,200 per day. Lyle
returned the M/V DUSTIN D on October 4, 2010 and failed to pay any charter hire after that date.
D&S Marine subsequently filed this suit against Lyle for breach of contract and open account
seeking to recover the charter hire amount from October 4, 2010 until December 20, 2010 when
the M/V DUSTIN D was sold. Lyle answered and made a Third Party Demand against Lawson. (Doc.
6.)
On October 24, 2011 D&S filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Liability. (Doc.
21.) On November 9, 2011 the Court granted that Motion as unopposed. (Doc. 31.) On January
4, 2012 D&S Marine filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Contractual Damages. (Doc. 32.)
Lyle opposed the Motion (Doc. 55) and D&S Marine replied (Doc. 60). On March 20, 2012 the Court
held a Hearing on the Motion. The Court orally granted D&S Marine’s Motion for Summary
Judgment on Contractual Damages and read reasons into the record. (Doc. 64.) The Court later
amended its Order to reflect that no attorneys fees would be awarded. (Doc. 65.)
On March 27, 2012 Lawson filed a Motion to Alter or Amend this Court’s Order granting
D&S’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Contractual Damages. (Doc. 69.) D&S opposed Lawson’s
Motion. (Doc. 76.)
‐2‐
LAW AND DISCUSSION
There is no motion for “reconsideration” in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bass v. U.S.
Dept. of Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000)(referencing Hamilton Plaintiffs v. Williams
Plaintiffs, 147 F.3d 367, 371 n. 10 (5th Cir.1998)). A motion for reconsideration filed within 28 days
of the district court's judgment, however, is construed as a Rule 59(e) motion. Id. Lawson’s motion
was filed on March 27, 2012, within seven days of this Court’s order. Therefore, it will be construed
as a Rule 59(e) Motion.
A Rule 59(e) motion “[i]s 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.
HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.2004)(citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154,
1159 (5th Cir.1990)). Instead, Rule 59(e) serves the purpose of correcting manifest errors of law
or fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fairgrounds Corp., 123
F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997); Sawhney v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., No. 09‐7651, 2010 WL 5057413, at
*1 (E.D. La. Dec. 2 2010). “‘Manifest error’ is one that ‘is plain and indisputable, and that amounts
to a complete disregard of the controlling law.’” Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th
Cir. 2004)(quoting Venegas–Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183, 195 (1st Cir.2004)).
In the Fifth Circuit, altering, amending, or reconsidering a judgment under Rule 59(e) “[i]s
an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (citing Clancy
v. Empl'rs Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E. D. La. 2000)). “A Rule 59(e) motion should not
be used to re‐litigate prior matters that . . . have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction.”
Voisin v. Tetra Techs., Inc., No. 08‐1302, 2010 WL 3943522, at *2 (E.D.La. Oct.6, 2010). While the
‐3‐
district courts do have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to
alter a judgment,” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir.1995), denial of Rule 59(e) motions
to alter or amend is favored. See S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Lawson contends that this Court committed manifest error of law by awarding Plaintiff “the
entire amount of the contracted for charter hire (minus stipulated deductions).” (Doc. 69‐1, p. 2.)
Lawson asserts that it placed D&S Marine in a much better position than if the charter had been
breached thereby allowing it to profit from the breach. (Id.) This Court does not agree with
Lawson’s argument and its recitation of this Court’s judgment.
The Court awarded to D&S Marine, pursuant to the D&S Marine‐Lawson Master Time
Charter, its expected revenue, less the deductions for the amounts paid by Lyle, less the amounts
D&S Marine earned in mitigation, less the expenses D&S Marine saved from the M/V DUSTIN D not
being used. Neither Lyle nor Lawson presented any evidence to this Court of any other amounts
that should be deducted. Moreover, this formula is common in maritime charter cases.1
In conclusion, as noted above, a Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle for rehashing issues
1
See, e.g., Skou v. United States, 478 F.2d 343, 347 (5th Cir. 1973)(holding that “[d]amage to the
owner can be computed by calculating the lost charter hire and deducting any savings to the owner
attributable to the ship’s being out of service”); Delta S.S. Lines, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyard, 747 F.2d
995, 1009 (5th Cir. 1984) on reh’g, 753 F.2d 378 (5th Cir. 1985)(when measuring damages for
detention under a time charter the lost income to the vessel owner is computed by reducing from
the gross charter hire expenses that the vessel owner would have incurred had the vessel not been
inactive); Huffman Towing, Inc. v. Mainstream Shipyard & Supply, Inc. 388 F.Supp. 1362, 1370‐1371
(N.D. Miss. 1975)(holding that a vessel owner is entitled to damages in the amount of daily charter
rate less ordinary operating expenses and that overhead or fixed expenses should not be deducted
in calculating the loss because such expenses remain constant, irrespective of the breach, and
nonperformance of the contract produces no overhead cost savings).
‐4‐
decided to a party’s dissatisfaction. The Court finds no manifest error in its previous conclusion and
denies Lawson’s Motion.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Lawson Environmental Services, LLC’s Motion to Reconsider or
Alternatively to Alter or Amend this Court’s Order on D&S Marine’s Motion for Summary Judgment
on Contractual Damages (Doc. 69) is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana on this 4th day of May, 2012.
_________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
‐5‐
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?