Vesoulis v. ReShape Lifesciences, Inc.

Filing 129

ORDER AND REASONS - IT IS ORDERED that 120 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED with regard to both motions for summary judgment at issue, as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 6/3/2021. (sa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
PAUL VESOULIS

CIVIL ACTION

v.

NO. 19-1795

RESHAPE LIFESCIENCES, INC.

SECTION “F”

ORDER AND REASONS
Rule 59 reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.”
473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).

Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
As such, a movant’s burden in seeking

to overturn a court’s judgment is a heavy one.

To prevail on a

Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration, 1 a movant must show: “(1)
an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of
new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct
a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”

In re

Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
In his motion for reconsideration here, the plaintiff fails
to cite the standard articulated above, much less to argue in any
“Whether a motion for reconsideration should be analyzed
under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) depends on when it was filed.”
Farquhar v. Steen, 611 F. App’x 796, 800 (5th Cir. 2015) (per
curiam) (citing Tex. A&M Rsch. Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338
F.3d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 2003)). When a party files a motion for
reconsideration “within the 28-day time limit prescribed by” Rule
59, its motion is “properly analyzed . . . under Rule 59(e).” Id.
1

1

novel or persuasive way that the Court committed clear legal error
or manifest injustice in granting the defendants’ motions for
summary judgment on May 12, 2021. 2
duplicative

and

meritless

The plaintiff’s recitation of

arguments

that

have

already

been

exhaustively considered does not entitle him to a second bite at
the apple.
*

*

*

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: that the plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED with regard to both motions for summary
judgment at issue.
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 3, 2021
______________________________
MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Because the law and facts pertaining to the defendants’
motions are unchanged, the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
can only be construed as an argument for clear error or manifest
injustice.
2

2