Hooks et al v. Nationwide Housing Systems, L.L.C. et al
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.
NATIONWIDE HOUSING SYSTEMS,
LLC, ET AL.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
(Rec. Doc. 88) and Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition (Rec. Doc.
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
However, if the motion is filed more than ten days
after the judgment, it is governed by Rule 60(b).
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
reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to
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.
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
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
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
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?