Dennis v. St Tammany Parish Hospital Service District No. 1, et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 6/7/2017. (Reference: Both Cases)(clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
FAYE DENNIS,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

No. 16-1781
c/w 16-2542

ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSPITAL
SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL.,
Defendants

SECTION “E”

Applies to: Both Cases
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e). 1 On April 26, 2017, the Court issued its Order and Reasons 2
granting the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 3 The Defendants oppose the
Plaintiff’s motion. 4 For the following reasons, the Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present
newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the judgment issued.” 5 A motion for reconsideration,
however, “is ‘not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments
that could have been offered or raised before the entry of [the order].’” 6 “The Court is

R. Doc. 32.
R. Doc. 30.
3 R. Doc. 20.
4 R. Doc. 34.
5 Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
6 Lacoste v. Pilgrim Int’l, No. 07-2904, 2009 WL 1565940, at *8 (E.D. La. June 3, 2009) (Vance, J.) (quoting
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004)).
1

2

1

mindful that ‘[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy
that should be used sparingly.’” 7 “When there exists no independent reason for
reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a
waste of judicial time and resources and should not be granted.” 8
In deciding motions under the Rule 59(e) standards, the courts in this district have
considered the following factors:
(1)

whether the movant demonstrates the motion is necessary to correct
manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;

(2)

whether the movant presents new evidence;

(3)

whether the motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; and

(4)

whether the motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling
law. 9

In her motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court improperly concluded she presented
no summary judgment evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
she relied on St. Tammany Parish Hospital’s (“STPH”) misrepresentation. First, The
Plaintiff argues that her statements in her sworn declaration demonstrate she relied on
STPH’s misrepresentation. 10 Second, the Plaintiff argues that in her statement of disputed
material facts, she stated that she relied on the notice of eligibility and rights and
responsibility when she consulted with her treating physician and learned that she should
restrict her work activities to what she could comfortably do in the Mail Room. 11

Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4 (alteration in
original) (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479).
8 Lightfoot v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 07-4833, 2012 WL 711842, at *3 (E.D. La. Mar. 5, 2012) (Brown,
J.).
9 Castrillo, 2010 WL 1424398, at *4.
10 R. Doc. 32-1 at 2 (citing R. Doc. 24-2 at ¶¶ 18-19).
11 Id. at 2-3 (citing R. Doc. 24-1 at ¶ 6).
7

2

Plaintiff does not offer any evidence demonstrating that the Court’s Order granting
summary judgment was the product of a mistake or any manifest error of law or fact; and
she does not identify any newly discovered evidence for consideration. 12 All of the
evidence cited and arguments made by the Plaintiff in her Motion for Reconsideration
were considered by the Court when it granted the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion 13 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 7th day of June, 2017.
____________________ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

See Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004).
R. Doc. 32.

3