Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. et al

Filing 131

RULING denying #118 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 06/06/2013. (CGP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH N. BROYLES, et al.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-854-JJB
CONSOLIDATED WITH
NO. 10-857-JJB
CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., et al.
RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s ruling
(Doc. 111) filed by Plaintiffs Joseph N. Broyles, et al.1(collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”)
(Doc. 118). Defendant Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. (“Cantor”) has filed an opposition. (Doc.130).
Oral argument is not necessary. For the reasons herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration. (Doc. 118).
I.
On April 17, 2013, this Court granted Cantor’s motion to dismiss with the exception of
the aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty claim because this Court founds that the parties
had not sufficiently briefed the choice of law question. (Doc. 111). On June 3, 2013, this Court
granted Cantor’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim asserted against
Cantor, finding that aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty was not a cognizable claim
under Louisiana law. (Doc. 129). Plaintiffs have filed this present motion, asking this Court to
reconsider the portion of the ruling dated April 17, 2013, where this Court dismissed Plaintiffs’

1

Plaintiffs are individuals, Municipal Employee’s Retirement System of Louisiana, the Registrar of Voters
Employee Retirement System, and the Firefighters’ Retirement System. (Doc. 87).

1

holder claim, finding that it was derivative. (Doc. 111). Plaintiffs argue that this holding was
erroneous, and contend that the holder claim belongs to the Plaintiffs because it is a direct claim.
This motion was filed within twenty-eight days of the Court’s ruling, so it is considered a
Rule 59(e) motion. “A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation and quotations omitted).
However, a Rule 59(e) motion is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories,
or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. at 479.
Instead, a motion for reconsideration is for the purpose of correcting “manifest errors of law or
fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted).
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ motion is a repetition of arguments already put forth
in front of and rejected by this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is
DENIED. (Doc. 118). The Court declines to reach the issue of whether Plaintiffs should be
granted leave to file a third amended complaint, as that matter is pending before the Magistrate
Judge.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on June 6, 2013.





JAMES J. BRADY, DISTRICT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

2