Naquin v. Berryland Campers, LLC

Filing 20

ORDER & REASONS: denying 16 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 2/10/15. (sek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

NAQUIN

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-2133

BERRYLAND CAMPERS, LLC

SECTION: J(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff's

Motion

Seeking

Reconsideration Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Rec.
Doc. 16) and Defendants' opposition thereto. (Rec. Doc. 18)
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's December 8,
2014, order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Rec. Doc. 11) Altering
or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary
remedy” used “sparingly” by the courts.

Templet v. Hydrochem,

Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).

A motion to alter or

amend calls into question the correctness of a judgment and is
permitted

only

in

narrow

situations,

“primarily

to

correct

manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.”

Id.; see also Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc.,

342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003).

Manifest error is defined as

“‘[e]vident to the senses, especially to the sight, obvious to

1

the understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden,
and

is

synonymous

with

open,

clear,

visible,

unmistakable,

indubitable, indisputable, evidence, and self-evidence.’”

In Re

Energy Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 2970393, at *6 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.
Sept. 15, 2009) (citations omitted); see also Pechon v. La. Dep't
of Health & Hosp., 2009 WL 2046766, at *4 (E.D. La. July 14,
2009) (manifest error is one that “‘is plain and indisputable,
and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling
law’”) (citations omitted).
The Fifth Circuit has noted that “such a motion is not the
proper

vehicle

for

rehashing

evidence,

legal

theories,

or

arguments that could have been offered or raised before entry of
judgment.”

Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-79.

Nor should it be used

to “re-litigate prior matters that ... simply have been resolved
to the movant’s dissatisfaction.”

Voisin v. Tetra Techs., Inc.,

No. 08-1302, 2010 WL 3943522, at *2 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2010).
Thus, to prevail on a motion under Rule 59(e), the movant must
clearly

establish

at

least

one

of

three

factors:

(1)

an

intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the availability
of new evidence not previously available, or (3) a manifest error
in law or fact.

Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567; Ross v. Marshall, 426

F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (to win a Rule 59(e) motion, the

2

movant “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or
fact or must present newly discovered evidence”).
In this case, Plaintiff does not rely on an intervening
change in controlling law since the Court’s December 8, 2014,
Order and Reasons. (Rec. Doc. 11)
pointed to any newly discovered

Moreover, Plaintiff has not

evidence previously unavailable,

nor has she established a manifest error of law or fact.

The

Court finds that Plaintiff's reasons for seeking reconsideration
are

based

on

evidence

and

arguments

previously

heard

and

considered by the Court, and the Court’s previous ruling was not
based on an erroneous view of the law or an erroneous assessment
of the evidence.
IT

IS

Accordingly,

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 18) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of February, 2015.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

for