Hooks et al v. Nationwide Housing Systems, L.L.C. et al

Filing 94

ORDER AND REASONS. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff's 88 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Carl Barbier on 4/4/2017. (gec)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

SARAH HOOKS, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 15-729

NATIONWIDE HOUSING SYSTEMS,
LLC, ET AL.

SECTION: J(3)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
(Rec. Doc. 88) and Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (Rec. Doc.
94).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly allow
motions for reconsideration of an order. Bass v. U.S. Dep’t of
Agric., 211 F.3d 959, 962 (5th Cir. 2000). The Fifth Circuit treats
a motion for reconsideration challenging a prior judgment as either
a motion “to alter or amend” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) or a motion for “relief from judgment” under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b).

Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works,

Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds
by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1076 (5th Cir. 1994).
The difference in treatment is based on timing.

If the motion is

filed within ten days of the judgment, then it falls under Rule
59(e).

Id.

However, if the motion is filed more than ten days

after the judgment, it is governed by Rule 60(b).

1

Id.

In the

present case, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc.
88) was filed on March 17, 2017, which is more than ten days after
the Court’s February 22 and February 24 orders denying their motion
for entry of separate final judgment (Rec. Docs. 86, 87). As a
result, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 88) is
considered under the more stringent Rule 60(b) standard.
Rule 60(b) provides that a court may reconsider an order for
the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable

neglect;

(2)

newly

discovered

evidence

which

by

reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to
move

for

a

new

trial

under

Rule

59(b);

(3)

fraud,

misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or
it is based on a prior judgment that has been reversed or vacated,
or it is no longer equitable for the judgment to have prospective
application; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

(2011).

A

district

court

has

Fed.

considerable

discretion to grant or deny relief under Rule 60(b), and its
decision will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion. Hesling
v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005). A district
court abuses its discretion only if it bases its decision on an
erroneous view of the law or clearly erroneous assessment of the
evidence.

Id.

2

In this case, the Court chooses not to exercise its discretion
to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Rec. Doc. 88).
First, Plaintiffs have already appealed this Court’s orders to the
Fifth Circuit. See (Rec. Doc. 89.) “A timely notice of appeal
divest the district court’s jurisdiction, meaning it cannot grant
a party’s Rule 60(b) motion” unless the case is remanded from the
appellate court. Moore v. Tangipahoa Par. School Bd., 836 F.3d
503, 503 (5th Cir. 2016). However, having considered the motion,
the legal memoranda, and the applicable law the Court finds that
Plaintiffs’

reasons

for

seeking

reconsideration

are

based

on

arguments previously heard and considered by the Court and do not
meet any of the requirements of Rule 60(b).

The Court’s previous

ruling was not based on an erroneous view of the law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence. Further, it appears that the
sole reason Plaintiffs seek reconsideration is to achieve an
extension of time within which to file a notice of appeal. Such
use of Rule 60(b) is not permitted. See Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d
491, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2002). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
(Rec. Doc. 88) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 4th day of April, 2017.

____________________________
CARL J. BARBIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3