Dorvin et al v. 3901 Ridgelake Drive, LLC et al
Filing
147
ORDER AND REASONS denying 115 Motion for Relief from Order ; FURTHER ORDERED that that the respective parties submit briefings to the Court regarding the issue of quantum by 6/30/2012. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 5/29/2012. (lag, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DOROTHY WATKINS DORVIN, ET AL
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
11-CV-696
3901 RIDGELAKE DRIVE, LLC, ET AL
SECTION B(2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Third Party Defendant ConstructionSouth,
Inc.’s (“CSI”)’s Motion for Relief from Order (Rec. Doc. No. 115).
Accordingly, and for the reasons pronounced below, IT IS
ORDERED that CSI’s Motion for Relief from Order (Rec. Doc. No. 115)
is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respective parties submit
briefings to the Court regarding the issue of quantum by June 30,
2012.
Cause of Action and Facts of the Case:
The facts of this case are well known to the Court. As such,
this analysis will adopt and incorporate by reference the cause of
action and facts of the case as noted in the Court’s March 27, 2012
Order and Reasons (Rec. Doc. No. 109, at 2-6).
Law and Analysis
a. Motion for Reconsideration:
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, at 1 (E.D. La. 2008)
(quotation marks omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
59(e) 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, at 2 (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 discovered
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).
2
While CSI’s motion is not stylized as a motion to reconsider,
the substance of its motion will be construed as such, with
relation to it seeking clarification of the Court’s denial of its
motion for summary judgment against Defendant 3901 pursuant to the
doctrine of res judicata. (See Rec. Doc. No. 109, at 16).
The
Court has already determined that the “arbitration award cannot be
granted preclusively effect.” (Id.). The Court found that the
arbitration award at issue arose from a contract dispute between
the contractor and the subcontractor, while the instant suit arose
from a contract dispute between the contractor and purchasers of
property. (Id. at 15). Further, the Court determined that the
subject matter of the arbitration was different from the instant
lawsuit because the arbitration focused on the “recovery of damages
under contract and tort theories . . . for the construction of
[the] condominiums,” while the instant lawsuit against Defendant
3901 was for construction defects, breach of warranty, breach of
contract,
and
misrepresentation.
(Id.
at
15).
Thusly,
the
respective parties and two proceedings are materially different, so
the arbitration award cannot be given preclusive effect. As such,
CSI has not established any evidence that would warrant this Court
to use the extraordinary remedy of reconsideration and give the
arbitration award preclusive effect.
Second, CSI asks the Court to amend its Order to state the
remaining issues to be litigated between Plaintiffs and Defendant
3
3901. (Rec. Doc. No. 115-1, at 2).
The Court has already granted
partial summary judgment on the issue of the New Home Warranty Act
in
favor
of
Plaintiffs.
The
Court
found
liability
against
Defendant 3901 to be appropriate because Defendant 3901 concedes
that it “cannot deny the essential and material allegations of the
plaintiff’s demand, because 3901 has judicially confessed [to] the
[construction] defects in state court as a matter of law and is
also barred by judicial estoppel, from denying those allegations.”
(Rec. Doc. No. 109, at 13).
The record also demonstrates that
Defendant 3901 did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on Issue of New Home Warranty Act (See Rec. Doc.
Nos. 8 and 12).
Only CSI, a third-party defendant, opposed said
motion, and the Court determined that CSI lacked standing to do so.
(Rec. Doc. Nos. 11 and 109). Accordingly, liability has been
established against Defendant 3901. Thusly, the next issue for the
Court to consider is that of quantum. See e.g., Castillo v. Oms,
1999 WL 197107, at *3 (E.D. La. 1991). Therefore, in light of the
Court’s prior determination of liability, the respective parties
are directed to submit briefings addressing the issue of damages to
the Court by June 30, 2012.
Accordingly, and for the reasons pronounced above, IT IS
ORDERED that CSI’s Motion for Relief from Order (Rec. Doc. No. 115)
is DENIED.
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respective parties submit
briefings to the Court regarding the issue of quantum by June 30,
2012.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29TH day of May, 2012.
______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?