Hill v. Abshiner et al

Filing 19

ORDER AND REASONS finding as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss; denying 14 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sarah S Vance on 3/10/2025. (meb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DANTRIEL MARIE HILL
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-1514

MARK CAMERON ABSHINER AND
USAA INSURANCE COMPANY

SECTION “R” (4)

ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Dantriel Hill moved to dismiss Defendant United Services
Automobile Association (“USAA”);1 for reconsideration and to vacate the
Court’s dismissal order;2 and for reconsideration, the overturn of dismissal,
and the grant of a default judgment.3 Defendants Mark Cameron Abshier
and USAA oppose the motion for reconsideration and default judgment.4
The Court denies plaintiff’s motions.
I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Dantriel Marie Hill sued Mark Cameron Abshier and his

insurer USAA in the Eastern District of Louisiana to recover for injuries she
allegedly suffered in a car accident with Abshier.5 On January 13, 2025, the
Court dismissed the matter without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
1
2
3
4
5

R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 14.
R. Doc. 15.
R. Doc. 17.
R. Doc. 1.

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because there was not complete
diversity among the parties.6
On February 10, 2025, plaintiff filed three motions. The first sought
to dismiss co-defendant USAA without prejudice in order to establish
complete diversity.7 The second asked the Court to reconsider and vacate
its dismissal order under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b).8
The third motion sought the same relief as the second motion, but also
asked for a default judgment against defendants under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55.9
The Court considers the motions below.
II.

LAW AND DISCUSSION
“Rules 59(e) and 60(b) permit the same relief—a change in the

judgment.” Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc., 784 F.2d 665,
669 (5th Cir. 1986). Despite the similarities, one difference between the
two is Rule 59(e) has a prescribed time limit: “A motion to alter or amend a
judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Under which Rule the motion falls turns

6
7
8
9

R. Doc. 12.
R. Doc. 13.
R. Doc. 14.
R. Doc. 15.

on the time at which the motion is [filed].” Texas A&M Rsch. Found. v.
Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 400 (5th Cir. 2003) (alteration in
original) (quoting 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 (5th Cir. 1994)). The motion falls under
Rule 59(e) if it is filed no later than 28 days of the rendition of judgment. It
falls under Rule 60(b) if it is filed after that time. See id.; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff filed his motions 28 days from the Court’s order.10
Rule 59(e) therefore applies.
A district court has considerable discretion to grant or deny a motion
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v.
Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). The Court must “strike the
proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the
need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.”

Id.

But

reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.”
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); see also

10

The Court’s order was issued on January 13, 2025, and plaintiff filed
his three motions on February 10, 2025. Exactly 28 days falls within
the bounds of Rule 59(e). See In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde
Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 09-5847, 2012 WL 27673, at *2 (E.D. La. Jan.
5, 2012) (“Here, the motion was filed . . . precisely twenty-eight days
after entry of the Court’s rulings on November 2, 2011. Thus, it
qualifies as a motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e).”)

Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., No. 97-3170, 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La.
Feb. 3, 1998), aff'd, 182 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 1999). Courts have held that the
moving party must show that the motion is necessary based on at least one
of the following criteria: “(1) where there has been an intervening change in
the controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered
evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error
of law or fact.” Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th
Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567
(5th Cir. 2003)).

Rule 59(e) motions are “not the proper vehicle for

rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478–
79.
Plaintiff does not demonstrate any of the requirements for Rule 59(e)
relief. There has been no change in the controlling law, plaintiff submits no
newly discovered evidence, and the Court has committed no manifest error
of law or fact. Although plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of codefendant USAA may have cured the jurisdictional defect before the Court
dismissed the case, the motion is moot once the case was dismissed. See
Blue Castle (Cayman) Ltd. v. Jones, No. 2:24-CV-953, 2025 WL 51215, at
*1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2025) (denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

under Rules 60(b) and 59(e) and to drop the nondiverse defendant after the
court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Further,
the Court already dismissed the claims against USAA without prejudice.
Plaintiff does not offer any reasons why the Court should alter its prior
order.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss co-defendant USAA11 as MOOT.

The Court DENIES each of

plaintiff’s other two motions.12

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____
10th day of March, 2025.

_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

R. Doc. 13.
R. Docs. 14 & 15.