Granger v. Bisso Marine, LLC et al
ORDERED that Bollinger's 106 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that Bollinger's 107 Motion to Expedite Hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration is DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Judge Eldon E. Fallon on 9/15/2016. (cms)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
BISSO MARINE, and
SECTION "L" (3)
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Bollinger Shipyard’s (“Bollinger”) Motion for
Reconsideration, R. Doc. 106. Plaintiff Granger opposes the Motion. R. Doc. 109. Having
reviewed the Parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, the Court now issues this Order & Reasons.
The Court assumes familiarity with the background of this case. In its most recent Order
and Reasons, the Court—for a second time—denied Defendant Bollinger’s Motion for Summary
Judgment. R. Doc. 100. Now Bollinger asks this Court to revisit the issue yet again, this time via
a Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
Defendant Bollinger’s Motion for Reconsideration (R. Doc. 106)
In its motion, Bollinger contends the questions of material fact the Court identified in its
Order are not supported by evidence. First, Bollinger contends there is no evidence the work it
completed on Stall Three contributed to the height difference between Stall Two and Three.
Further, Bollinger argues that even if it did contribute to this height difference, or gap, there is no
evidence the gap played a role in Plaintiff’s accident. Second, Bollinger argues that there is no
evidence they cut the barrier which previously blocked the walkway between Stall Two and Stall
Three, and therefore no question of fact on which to deny the motion for summary judgment.
Reconsideration (R. Doc. 109)
Plaintiff opposes Bollinger’s motion and reiterates many of the same arguments he made
in his opposition to Bollinger’s two previous motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff contends
that there are questions of material fact regarding whether Bollinger created a tripping hazard by
removing protective barricades after working on the roof of Stall Three, and whether Stall Two
was within Bollinger’s work area. Plaintiff disputes Bollinger’s position that the height difference
between Stalls Two and Three did not play a role in the accident. Additionally, Plaintiff argues the
photograph “show[ing] that barricade bars had been cut,” in combination with testimony that
Bollinger removed safety barricades around Stall Three, creates a question of material fact as to
whether Bollinger created the hazard which caused the injury in this case.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Motion for Reconsideration Standard
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically recognize a motion for
reconsideration. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
1997). However, when a movant seeks review of a judgment, such as in the present case, courts
treat a motion for reconsideration as either a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment, or as
a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from a judgment or order. Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals,
Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 666 (5th Cir. 1986). The motion is considered a Rule 59(e) motion if filed no
later than 28 days from the entry of a judgment, and a Rule 60(b) motion if filed after this time
period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Here, Defendant filed its Motion within 28 days of entry of the
Court's Order & Reasons; thus, the Motion is treated as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend
judgment. A Rule 59(e) motion serves the narrow purpose of correcting manifest errors or law or
fact, or presenting newly discovered evidence. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th
Cir. 2004) (quoting Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989)).
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Id. (citing Clancy v. Empl'rs Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)).
District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to alter
a judgment.” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995).
The Court finds that Bollinger has failed to demonstrate it is entitled to the extraordinary
remedy of reconsideration. Bollinger has twice filed motions for summary judgment in this matter,
and twice the Court has found there are disputed material facts in this case. Now, Bollinger seeks
yet another bite at the apple, without providing additional evidence, or demonstrating the Court’s
previous two Orders were based on manifest errors of fact or law. In addition, in the proposed
pretrial order, Plaintiff states he observed Bollinger cut the bars which previously blocked the
pathway between Stalls Two and Three. R. Doc. 103 at 4. This is further evidence of a disputed
material fact in this matter. Therefore, Bollinger’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Bollinger’s Motion for Reconsideration, R. Doc.
106, is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bollinger’s Motion to Expedite Hearing on
the Motion for Reconsideration, R. Doc. 107, is DISMISSED as moot.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 15th day of September, 2016.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?