Randle v. Tregre et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 12/7/2015. (blg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DARNELL RANDLE

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 15-395

MIKE TREGRE, ET AL.

SECTION I

ORDER
Before the Court is a motion 1 for reconsideration filed by defendant, Travis Thomas
(“Thomas”), in his individual capacity. Thomas asks this Court to reconsider that portion of its
order and reasons 2 granting summary judgment in favor of his co-defendant, Justin Bordelon
(“Bordelon”), in his individual capacity.
But as this Court explained at the pretrial conference, Thomas has asserted no claim against
Bordelon in this proceeding and, as he did not file an opposition to the motion for partial summary

1
2

R. Doc. No. 60.
R. Doc. No. 59.

judgment before it was ruled on by this Court, the Court considers his motion to be procedurally
barred. 3 Furthermore, from a substantive standpoint, Thomas’s request is rejected. 4 Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, December 7, 2015.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Thomas may also lack standing to make this request. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure state that a “party seeking to recover upon a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim” or “a
party against whom a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim is asserted” may seek or oppose a motion
for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)-(b). “While some courts have precluded codefendants without crossclaims from filing oppositions to a co-defendant’s motion for summary
judgment, see, e.g., Dorvin v. 3901 Ridgelake Drive, LLC, No. 11–00696, 2012 WL 1057599, at
*4 (E.D. La. Mar.28, 2012) (citing cases holding that co-defendants do not have standing to file
oppositions); Thurman v. Wood Group Prod. Servs., Inc., No. 09–4142, 2010 WL 5207587, at *1
(E.D. La. Dec.14, 2010), others have considered a co-defendant’s opposition. See Helen of Troy,
L.P., 235 F.R.D. 634, 640 (W.D. Tex.2006).” Edwards v. Permobil, Inc., No. 11-1900, 2013 WL
4094393, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 13, 2013) adhered to, No. 11-1900, 2013 WL 4548706 (E.D. La.
Aug. 27, 2013) (Vance, J.). This Court need not decide the issue, however, in light of the
procedural bar to Thomas’s motion for reconsideration.
4
Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[A motion for
reconsideration] is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that
could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”). As Thomas originally offered
no arguments in opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment, any arguments he now
raises are “arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”
2