Dixon v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 6/18/13. (sek, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CIVIL ACTION
LANDRY DIXON
VERSUS

NO: 12-2150

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT
CORPORATION, ET AL.

SECTION: "J”(1)

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's "Motion for Temporary
Injunction." (Rec. Doc. 24). Defendant, Troy Campise ("Mr.
Campise"), has filed an opposition (Rec. Doc. 33) Plaintiff’s
motion was set for hearing on the briefs on Wednesday, March 27,
2013. Having considered the motion, the parties’ submissions, the
record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that Plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration should be DENIED.
On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se
action against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation ("Toyota Credit")
and Troy Campise ("Mr. Campise"), a Lakeside Toyota Sales
Manager, alleging that the Defendants defrauded him and his
corporation, DELF, Inc. (“DELF”) in violation of state and

federal law in connection with an automobile lease.1 (Pl.’s
Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1) On December 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed
a “Motion for Temporary Injunction,” (Rec. Doc. 13), which the
Court denied on January 8, 2013. (Rec. Doc . 18) Plaintiff filed
the instant motion for reconsideration on March 4, 2013. (Rec.
Doc. 24)
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow
motions for reconsideration.

Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 211

F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). In the Fifth Circuit, a motion for
reconsideration challenging a prior judgment is treated either as
a motion “to alter or amend” under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) or a motion for “relief from judgment” under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach.
& Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated
on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069,
1076 (5th Cir. 1994). The difference in treatment is based on

1

Plaintiff filed a typed complaint entitled “Fruadulent [sic] Lease
Agreement,” and the typed caption named Delf, Inc. and Landry Dixon as
Plaintiffs. (Pl.’s Compl., Rec. Doc. 1) However, Plaintiff used a pen to
strike through the reference to Delf, Inc. in the caption of his complaint and
to strike through most of the other references to DELF, Inc. throughout the
remainder of the complaint rendering it unclear whether DELF, Inc. is or is
not an additional Plaintiff in this action. (Pl.’s Compl., Rec. Doc. 1) For
example, the Complaint provides:
Plaintiff avers that he entered into a 60-month automotive lease
agreement, on behalf of DELF, Inc., with the defendant’s agent, at
Lakeside Toyota, on December 1, 2010; plaintiff agreed to lease
one 2010 Toyota Corolla passenger vehicle...
(Pl.'s Compl., Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2)

2

timing. If the motion is filed within twenty-eight days of the
challenged order, then it falls under Rule 59(e). Id.; FED. R.
CIV. P. 59(e). However, if the motion is filed more than twentyeight days after the judgment, but not more than one year after
the entry of judgment, it is governed by Rule 60(b). Id.; FED. R.
CIV. P. 60(c). In the present case, Defendant’s Motion for
Reconsideration was filed more than twenty-eight days, but not
more than one year, after the order denying his "Ex Parte Motion
for Temporary Injunction." Consequently, it will be treated as a
motion for "relief from judgment" under Rule 60(b).
Rule 60(b) provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party
or its legal representatives from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with
reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to more for a new trial under
Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it
prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

3

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the record, the Court
finds that Plaintiff has merely reiterated the arguments he made
in his original “Motion for Temporary Injunction” and has not
offered any reason sufficient to justify the relief requested
under Rule 60(b). Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff
has not asserted any new facts that make his success on the
merits any more likely.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 24) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 18th day of June, 2013.

CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4