Phelps v. Daimler Trucks North America

Filing 299

ORDER and REASONS denying 297 Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability, as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 7/20/2015. (Reference: 13-6685, 13-6686)(cbs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MEGAN D. PHELPS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 13-6685
c/w 13-6686

DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA, LLC
D/B/A FREIGHTLINER, LLC

SECTION “N” (5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Now before the Court are Defendant CRST International, Inc.'s ("CRST International") (1)
Motion for Expedited Consideration of the Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 296) and (2)
Motion for Reconsideration of Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability (Rec. Doc. 297). For
the reasons stated herein, the Motion for Expedited Consideration (Rec. Doc. 296) is hereby
GRANTED, and the Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 297) is hereby DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration "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. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990)
(internal citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration may also be appropriate "when there has
been an intervening change in the controlling law." See In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626,
629 (5th Cir. 2002).
CRST International requests that the Court reconsider its Order granting in part and denying

1

in part CRST International's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability (Rec. Doc. 278),
in which the Court denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff David Sarty's claim for negligent
undertaking. CRST International states in its motion for reconsideration, "[i]n an abundance of
caution, Movant seeks to apprise the court of all specific facts included in the record on these
issues, since a variety of issues were initially raised in its original motion for summary
judgment." (Rec. Doc. 297-1 at p. 1). CRST International does not argue any intervening change
in law or newly discovered evidence. However, CRST International prays that the Court reverse
its ruling because the evidence in the record, CRST International argues, is insufficient to find
it liable under a theory of negligent undertaking.
After reviewing the relevant record, the parties' original pleadings, the instant Motion (Rec.
Doc. 297), and the response in opposition filed by David Sarty (Rec. Doc. 298), the Court does not
find that the Court committed manifest error of law or fact in its June 15, 2015 Order. Accordingly,
CRST International is not entitled to the relief sought, and its Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of July 2015.

______________________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2