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)

Download PDF
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

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?