Carlisle v. Normand, et al

Filing 132

ORDER AND REASONS denying 112 Motion for Reconsideration, as set forth in Order. Signed by Judge Jane Triche Milazzo. (ecm)

.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 16-3767

NEWELL NORMAND, ET AL.

SECTION: “H”(1)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs (Doc.
112). For the following reasons, this Motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
In this suit, Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the Jefferson
Parish Drug Court is conducted. The allegations of Plaintiffs’ Complaints have
been detailed and length in the Court’s earlier Order and Reasons and need
not be repeated here.1

In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court to

reconsider its dismissal of their class action allegations against Defendants
Drug Court Administrator Kristen Becnel, Program Supervisor Tracy Mussal,

1

Doc. 110.

1

Probation Coordinator Kevin Theriot, and Director of Counseling Joe McNair.
Defendants Becnel, Mussal, and Theriot oppose this Motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders are governed by Rule 54(b),
which allows a district court to “revise[] at any time” “any order or other
decision . . . [that] does not end the action.”2 “[T]he trial court is free to
reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in
the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the
substantive law.”3 “Rule 54(b)’s approach to the interlocutory presentation of
new arguments as the case evolves can be more flexible, reflecting the inherent
power of the rendering district court to afford such relief from interlocutory
judgments as justice requires.”4
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In its earlier Order and Reasons the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ class
allegations because they had pleaded insufficient facts relative to the existence
of a class. The Court finds the instant Motion perplexing, however, as the
Court granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to remedy its
deficiencies. Additionally, Plaintiffs offer no new evidence or arguments from
which the Court could conclude that its earlier Order should be reversed.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990)
(citing FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)), abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37
F.3d 1069, 1075 n 14 (5th Cir. 1994).
4 Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., No. 16-10502, 2017 WL 1379453, at *9 (5th Cir. Apr.
14, 2017) (citing Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25–26 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
2
3

2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 31st day of July, 2017.

____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3