GIC Services, LLC v. Freightplus (USA) Inc.

Filing 246

ORDER denying 227 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 12/29/2015. (mmm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GIC SERVICES, LLC

CIV. A. 13-6781

VERSUS

SECTION “C”(2)

FREIGHTPLUS (USA), INC.

HON. HELEN BERRIGAN
ORDER

Before the Court is the Rule 60(b) motion of third-party defendant and
counterclaimant Industrial Maritime Carriers, LLC (“IMC”) for reconsideration of the
Court’s judgment dated September 29, 2015. See Rec. Doc. 227; see also Rec. Doc. 222.
The motion is opposed by GIC Services, LLC (“GIC”). See Rec. Doc. 236.
IMC contends that it has discovered new evidence––an October 2015 invoice and
correspondence––that demonstrates the Court erred when it found the invoice contained
in Trial Exhibit 101 to be a more credible summary of the costs of releasing the M/V
REBEL from storage in Warri than the invoice contained in Trial Exhibit 117. See Rec.
Doc. 227-2 at 4–6. IMC contends that GIC was aware of the invoice and its precursors,
which represent the true cost of storing the M/V REBEL while also representing that
Trial Exhibit 101 was accurate. See id. at 5.
Rule 60(b) imposes “exacting substantive requirements” on the party seeking
relief. See Levespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173–74 (5th
Cir. 1990); see also Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 483 (5th Cir. 2004)
(comparing Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b)). Here, the Court is not persuaded that IMC has
satisfied those exacting requirements or presented the evidence necessary for the Court to
unsettle its determination “that the Visifi invoice provides a sufficiently credible and
1

detailed summary of the costs of releasing the REBEL from storage in Warri.” See Rec.
Doc. 221 at 7.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that IMC’s Rule 60(b) motion to reconsider is DENIED. Rec.
Doc. 227.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of December, 2015

________________________________
HELEN G. BERRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2