Consolidated Grain & Barge, Inc. v. Anny et al

Filing 392

ORDER AND REASONS denying 384 Motion for New Trial; denying 388 Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, Motion to Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 1/15/2016. (Reference: 11-2615, 13-5827)(ijg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CONSOLIDATED GRAIN & BARGE, INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 11-2204
c/w 11-2615
and 13-5827

RANDY ANNY, ET AL.

SECTION "B"(1)
ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court are two motions filed by Intervenor Barbara
Falgoust (“Falgoust”) and Defendant Randy Anny (“Anny”) seeking a
new trial, or, in the alternative, to alter or amend the judgment
under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rec. Doc.
Nos.

382,

388).

Plaintiff,

American

River

Transportation

Co.

(“ARTCO”), filed a memorandum in opposition urging this Court to
deny both motions as meritless delay tactics by Falgoust and Anny.
(Rec. Doc. No. 390). For the reasons outlined below,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions are DENIED.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This case arises out of a property dispute between ARTCO,

Anny, and Falgoust. This Court held a bench trial in the matter
and, on November 4, 2015, entered judgment in favor of ARTCO,
finding that Anny and Falgoust engaged in a trespass upon ARTCO’s
property. (Rec. Doc. No. 376 at 2). Anny and Falgoust now seek a
new trial or, in the alternative, an amended judgment.

II.

THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

Falgoust seeks a new trial or an amended judgment on the
ground that she was an intervenor and not a defendant in the case
because ARTCO never plead a trespass claim against her. (Rec. Doc.
No. 382 at 1). Therefore, she claims that it was prejudicial error
for the Court to find her liable for damages as a result of a
trespass. (Rec. Doc. No. 382 at 8). Anny, representing himself pro
se, does not present a clear basis for either a new trial or an
amended judgment, instead asserting an assortment of arguments in
his “factual history” section. (Rec. Doc. No. 388-1 at 1-2). He
also adopts Falgoust’s motion “in its entirety, as if copied
herein, in extenso.” (Rec. Doc. No. 388 at 1).
ARTCO’s memorandum in opposition asserts that both Falgoust
and Anny were well aware that ARTCO sought damages against both of
them.

Further,

ARTCO

points

to

evidence

produced

at

trial

indicating that Falgoust committed a trespass as well as numerous
pre- and post-trial pleadings indicating that ARTCO sought damages
against both Falgoust and Anny, none of which were objected to by
Anny or Falgoust. ARTCO argues in the alternative that, even if
the Court finds that ARTCO did not seek damages against Falgoust
in any pleadings, that Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permits the Court to find that Falgoust trespassed (and
assess damages against her) based on the evidence presented at
trial. Accordingly, ARTCO urges the Court to deny both motions.

III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
Rule 59 provides that, after a nonjury trial, a court may
grant a new trial “for any reason for which a rehearing has
heretofore been granted in a suit in equity in federal court.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. “A motion for a new trial in a nonjury case or
a petition for rehearing should be based upon manifest error of
law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set aside
except for substantial reasons.” Offshore Specialty Fabricators,
LLC v. Dumas Int’l, Inc., 2014 WL 1477405, No. 11-248, at *1 (E.D.
La. Apr. 15, 2014) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright, et al. Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2804 (3d ed. 2013)). Further, Rule 59(e)
permits parties to file a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Fed
R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Motions for a new trial or to alter or amend a
judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or
fact or must present newly discovered evidence. These motions
cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have
been made before the judgment issued. Moreover, they cannot be
used to argue a case under a new legal theory.” Simon v. U.S., 891
F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).
Falgoust has presented no new evidence in her motion, instead
she seemingly relies on an alleged “manifest error of law”—that
she was not named as a defendant in ARTCO’s complaint and therefore
should not have been found liable for damages. During extensive

pretrial
(including

discussions,
the

final

pleadings/motions,
pretrial

and

conference),

conferences
Falgoust

was

sufficiently apprised with due notice of this and all claims
against her. Moreover, as ARTCO’s opposition notes, evidence of
Falgoust’s trespass was repeatedly established at trial. (Rec.
Doc. No. 390 at 4-7). Falgoust never objected, and does not claim
to have objected, to the evidence on the ground that it was outside
of issues raised in the pleadings. Accordingly, Falgoust gave her
implied consent to the issue being tried. Pursuant to Rule 15(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court must then treat
the issue as if it were raised in the pleadings. Consequently, no
manifest error of law occurred, and Falgoust’s motion must be
denied.
Anny’s motion does not claim to have any new evidence.
Further, he does not identify or allege any manifest error of law
or fact (other than adopting the allegations of Falgoust’s motion).
Anny’s motion only recites alleged “facts” without clarifying how
they

justify

a

new

trial.

He

has

presented

no

substantial

justification for either remedy sought. For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions are DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of January, 2016.

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE