Evans et al v. TIN, Inc.
Filing
466
ORDER AND REASONS denying 286 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 7/16/12. (Reference: all cases)(ala, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION
TERRAL EVANS, ET AL.
No. 11-2067 C/W
11-2068; 11-2069; 11-2182; 11-2348;
11-2351; 11-2417; 11-2949; 11-2985;
11-2987; 11-3018; 11-3021; 11-3048;
11-3049; 12-18; 11-3050
REF: ALL CASES
VERSUS
SECTION I
TIN, INC.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a motion1 for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs with respect to this
Court’s previous order dismissing their claims for punitive damages under the general maritime
law. Defendant, TIN, Inc. (“TIN”), has filed an opposition.2 For the following reasons, the
motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arises out of the alleged wrongful discharge of contaminants from TIN’s
paper mill and waste treatment facility located in Bogalusa, Louisiana (“the Bogalusa Paper
Mill”), into the Pearl River on or about August 9, 2011.3 Plaintiffs alleged in their master
consolidated class action complaint that the discharge from TIN’s facilities was “transmitted to
the Pearl River directly by a diffuser located in the River itself.”4 Plaintiffs consist of a proposed
1
R. Doc. No. 286.
2
R. Doc. No. 310.
3
R. Doc. No. 103, at ¶ 33.
4
Id. at ¶ 111.
1
class of all natural and juridical persons that sustained damage from the discharge, including
property owners, businesses, residents, fishermen, and individuals sustaining personal injuries as
a result of the discharge.5 Among other things, plaintiffs sought punitive damages under general
maritime law and the laws of Texas and/or Mississippi.6
On April 27, 2012, this Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages arising
from this incident to the extent that they were asserted under the general maritime law.7 The
Court applied the well-settled maritime location and connection test and it found that the claims
did not arise under the general maritime law.8 The Court held that while the tort occurred on
navigable water and had a potentially disruptive impact on maritime commerce, the general
character of the activity giving rise to the incident did not show a substantial relationship to
traditional maritime activity.9 The Court explained that TIN’s land-based industrial activities did
not involve navigation, seaman, safety aboard vessels, or other traditional maritime activities.10
On May 25, 2012, plaintiffs filed this motion for reconsideration to reinstate the claims
for punitive damages under the general maritime law for commercial fishermen only.11 Plaintiffs
suggest that an amendment to the Court’s prior ruling is appropriate because (1) TIN’s delictual
acts occurred within a navigable river and were not wholly land-based, (2) the conduct amounts
to a violation of express provisions of federal law that exist to protect traditional maritime
5
Id. at ¶¶ 33-34.
6
Id. at ¶ 315.
7
R. Doc. No. 224.
8
Id. at pp. 5-8.
9
Id.
10
Id.
11
R. Doc. No. 286.
2
navigation and commerce such as commercial fishing, and (3) commercial fishermen claim
damages and losses in this action from TIN’s violations of maritime law and deserve the
protection of maritime law.12 Plaintiffs contend that the Court was misled by TIN’s “total
disregard for the actual facts” when it described the discharge as “land-based.”13 Plaintiffs have
submitted additional evidence showing the location of the diffuser in the river and purporting to
show that its presence in the river implicates issues of navigation.14 TIN responds that plaintiffs’
motion provides no basis for reconsideration and that it is an improper attempt to relitigate
arguments this Court considered and rejected.15
STANDARD OF LAW
A motion to alter or amend a judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) motion “serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473
(5th Cir. 1989). A district court has “considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a
case in response to a motion for reconsideration under” Rule 59(e).
Lavespere v. Niagara
Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by
Little v. Liquid Air. Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). The Court must strike the
proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of
all the facts. Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). “A moving
party must satisfy at least one of the following four criteria to prevail on a Rule 59(e) motion: (1)
the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
R. Doc. No. 316.
15
R. Doc. No. 310.
3
which the judgment is based; (2) the movant presents new evidence; (3) the motion is necessary
in order to prevent manifest injustice; and, (4) the motion is justified by an intervening change in
the controlling law.” Jupiter v. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., No. 99-0628, 1999 WL
796218, at *1 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 1999) (Vance, J.).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that reconsideration is necessary to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to allow plaintiffs to present new evidence. First, the Court was not
misled, as plaintiffs suggest, when it characterized the incident as a product of TIN’s “land-based
industrial activities.” The Court considered the fact that the diffuser was located in the river
when it based its analysis on the allegations in the complaint, which state that the waste was
“transmitted to the Pearl River directly by a diffuser located in the River itself.” Second, the
evidence submitted in connection with the motion for reconsideration merely supplements what
was already stated in the complaint and it adds little to a proper analysis of the maritime
connection test, which turns on a characterization of the events at an intermediate level of
generality.16 The evidence continues to support this Court’s characterization of the events giving
rise to this dispute as a discharge of waste into a navigable river from a land-based industrial
facility. Plaintiffs’ attempt to characterize the diffuser as an “obstruction of navigation” does not
bear on the general character of the land-based activities that are alleged to have given rise to the
incident. Accordingly, the Court does not find that plaintiffs have established grounds for
reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Rather, as TIN observes, plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is an attempt to rehash
arguments this Court has already considered and rejected. The fact that plaintiffs have requested
16
This Court has characterized the activity giving rise to the incident as “a massive discharge of pollution into
navigable water from a land-based industrial facility.” R. Doc. No. 224, p. 7.
4
relief only with respect to commercial fishermen exposes the flaw in the arguments they continue
to assert: while the tort occurred on navigable water and may have had an impact on the
maritime activities of commercial fisherman, the focus of the second prong of the connection test
is on TIN’s activities, which were not substantially related to any traditional maritime activities.
For the reasons this Court previously expressed, plaintiffs’ claims arise under state tort law and
do not warrant application of special admiralty rules.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, July 16, 2012.
LANCE M. AFRICK
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?