Ioppolo v. Rumana et al
Filing
135
RULING denying 131 Motion for Reconsideration of 130 Order on Motion to Dismiss. This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings involving the remaining Defendants Rumana and Cuffe. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 11/3/2011. (JDL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ANTHONY IOPPOLO, M.D.,
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
06-193-JJB-DLD
CHRISTOPHER RUMANA, M.D.,
MARK CUFFE, M.D., AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF NEUROLOGICAL
SURGEONS, and AMERICAN COLLEGE
OF SURGEONS
RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Plaintiff brings this Motion to Reconsider (doc. 134) the Court’s earlier
ruling granting a motion to dismiss by Defendant American Association of
Neurological Surgeons
and the American College of Surgeons (collectively
“AANS”) (doc. 130).1 AANS filed an opposition. Plaintiff did not file a reply by the
deadline given by the Court.
There is no need for oral argument.
For the
following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize this particular
type of motion, Rule 54(b) grants district courts the authority to reconsider
interlocutory orders or decisions. Courts thus retain jurisdiction over all the claims
in a suit and may alter its earlier decisions until final judgment has been issued.
See Livingston Downs v. Jefferson Downs, 259 F.Supp.2d 471, 475 (M.D. La.
2002) (citing Zapata Gulf Marine, Inc., 925 F.2d 812, 815 (5th Cir. 1991). District
1
This earlier motion to dismiss was brought by all defendants. Judge Tyson heard oral argument and denied the
motion as to Drs. Rumana and Cuffe. He deferred ruling as to the AANS defendants. After his death, this case was
transferred to this Court.
courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether to reconsider an
interlocutory order.
Id.
Motions for reconsideration based upon the same
arguments merely waste the limited time and resources of the Court.
van
Heerden v. Bd. of Sup’rs of La. State Univ. and Agricultural and Mechanical
College, No. 10-155, 2010 WL 2545746, at *1 (M.D. La. June 21, 2010).
Similarly, courts generally decline to reconsider when the movant is simply
rehashing old arguments or raising an argument for the first time without
justification.” McClung v. Gautreaux, No. 11-263, 2011 WL 4062387, at *1 (M.D.
La. September 13, 2011). Such a motion should not give the losing party the
chance to merely reargue his losing points and authorities. Baustian v. State of
Louisiana, 929 F.Supp. 980, 981 (E.D. La. 1996) (citation omitted).
Plaintiff bears the burden of showing some error of law or fact by the court
or else some new evidence which might make the Court wish to revisit its earlier
ruling. He has not done this. Instead he merely reargues his opposition to the
12(b)(6) motion, telling the Court why it should have ruled in his favor. He brings
nothing new to the table.
The Court finds this to be a rehash of his past
arguments. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider
(doc. 134).
This matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further
proceedings involving the remaining Defendants Rumana and Cuffe.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 30, 2011.
JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
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?