Price v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, LLC

Filing 122

ORDER AND REASONS denying 119 MOTION to Amend 118 Judgment. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 11/9/2015.(blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RICHARD PRICE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 14-660

GREAT LAKES DREDGE AND DOCK
COMPANY, LLC

SECTION I

ORDER AND REASONS
The Court has pending before it a motion1 filed by plaintiff pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to amend the judgment2 entered on September 24, 2015. Defendant
opposes the motion.3 For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
“A motion to alter or amend a judgment filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) serves the narrow
purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Wilcox v. Max Welders, L.L.C. 969 F. Supp. 2d 668, 687 (E.D. La. 2013) (Africk, J.)
(internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).4 Plaintiff asserts two purported manifest errors
of law and fact in the Court’s judgment.
First, plaintiff contends that the Court should have awarded prejudgment interest as to the
past damages component of the jury’s verdict.5 However, the jury awarded plaintiff damages only
with respect to his Jones Act claim,6 and the law in the Fifth Circuit is that “prejudgment interest is

1

R. Doc. No. 119.
R. Doc. No. 118.
3
R. Doc. No. 120.
4
The Court entered the judgment on August 26, 2015, and RSUI filed its motion on
September 15, 2015, less than 28 days later. Accordingly, RSUI timely filed its motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e).
5
R. Doc. No. 119-1, at 3-4.
6
R. Doc. No. 112-4.
2

1

not recoverable in Jones Act cases tried to a jury.” Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 852 F.2d 1421,
1435 (5th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted); accord Jauch v. Nautical Servs., Inc., 470 F.3d 207, 215 (5th
Cir. 2006) (“Courts have generally recognized that the award of prejudgment interest may be
appropriate in Jones Act cases tried in admiralty.”) (emphasis added); Williams v. Reading & Bates
Drilling Co., 750 F.2d 487, 491 (5th Cir. 1985) (holding that “it is well settled that in an action at
law” and tried to the jury, “the recovery of prejudgment interest is not permitted”).7 Accordingly,
plaintiff has not identified any manifest error of law with respect to the unavailability of
prejudgment interest.
Second, plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it reduced the jury’s award of future
medical costs by plaintiff’s comparative fault because “those damages constitute future cure.”8
Plaintiff waived this argument by failing to assert in the final pretrial order9 that cure was at issue
and by representing to the Court before trial that cure would not be an issue.10 Having failed to
preserve the issue, plaintiff cannot now assert that the Court manifestly erred with respect to this
issue.11 Accordingly,

7

The cases on which plaintiff relies were not Jones Act cases tried to a jury. Couch v.
Cro-Marine Transport, Inc., 44 F.3d 319, 327-28 (5th Cir. 1995) (discussing award of
prejudgment interest as to LHWCA claim); Reeled Tubing, Inc. v. M/V Chad G, 794 F.2d 1026,
1028 (general maritime negligence claim); Celtic Marine Corp. v. James c. Justice Companies,
Inc., 2014 WL 2215755, at *1 (E.D. La. May 28, 2014) (non-Jones Act maritime case) (Barbier,
J.).
8
R. Doc. No. 119-1, at 4.
9
R. Doc. No. 72.
10
R. Doc. No. 63, at 1 (“The parties represented that general maritime law negligence and
maintenance and cure will not be issues at trial.”).
11
This order and reasons has no bearing on any request for future cure by plaintiff.
2

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 9, 2015.
________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3