Foster v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER AND REASONS denying 52 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo on 2/2/15. (ecm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DAVID P. FOSTER

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 12–2548

INGALLS SHIPBUILDING, INC.

SECTION: "H"(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial (Doc. 52). For the
following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
The facts of this case are detailed in the Court's November 10, 2014 Order
and Reasons. In its Order, the Court granted summary judgment and dismissed
this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling.

1

LEGAL STANDARD
Although styled a Motion for New Trial, Plaintiff's Motion seeks to alter
or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). 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."1 Instead, Rule 59(e)
serves the narrow purpose of correcting "'manifest error[s] of law or fact or . . .
presenting newly discovered evidence.'"2 "'Manifest error' is one that 'is plain
and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling
law.'"3
In the Fifth Circuit, altering, amending, or reconsidering a judgment
under Rule 59(e) "[i]s an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly."4
While district courts have "considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant
or deny a motion to alter a judgment,"5 denial is favored.6
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In his Motion, Plaintiff does not present any new evidence or offer any new
legal theories. Instead, he argues that the Court's prior order was wrong. He
1

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)).
2

Advocare Int'l, LP v. Horizon Labs., Inc., 524 F.3d 679, 691 (5th Cir. 2008) (quoting
Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003)).
3

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)).
4

Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (citations omitted).

5

Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995).

6

See S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993).

2

offers three separate arguments in support of the Motion. First, Plaintiff argues
that the Court was incorrect when it determined that his defamation claim had
prescribed. In support of this argument Plaintiff cites Brunett v. La. Dept. of
Wildlife and Fisheries.7 Brunett held that prescription on an age discrimination
claim does not begin to run until the adverse employment action complained of
is complete.8

Not only is Brunett inapplicable to the Court's ruling on

prescription of a defamation claim, but it has been expressly overruled by the
Louisiana Supreme Court.9
Second, Plaintiff claims that the Court disregarded his arguments in
opposition to the motion for summary judgment. In support of this argument,
he incorporates his opposition by reference. Finally, Plaintiff claims that the
Court incorrectly refused to consider inadmissible hearsay evidence that he
offered in opposition to the summary judgment.

These arguments have

previously been considered, and rejected, by the Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff
has made no attempt to explain how these alleged errors are plain or
indisputable.10
Plaintiff's Motion offers no new legal theories or evidence, and cites a
single distinguishable case that has been overruled by the Louisiana Supreme
Court. In the absence of any credible argument that the Court's prior order was
in error, the Motion is denied.
7

685 So. 2d 618, 621 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1996).

8

Id.

9

Eastin v. Entergy Corp., 865 So. 2d 49, 54 n.3 (La. 2004).

10

See Guy, 694 F.3d at 325.

3

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for New Trial is DENIED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2nd day of February, 2015.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4