Broyles v. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. et al

Filing 313

RULING denying #289 Motion to Reconsider or, in the Alternative, to Certify Judgment as Final. Signed by Judge James J. Brady on 02/10/2015. (BCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOSEPH N. BROYLES, ET AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-854-JJB-SCR
CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., ET AL.
THIS APPLIES TO CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-CV-00854-JJB-SCR
RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion (doc. 289) for Reconsideration.
Plaintiff, “the Investors”, seeks partial reconsideration for this Court’s ruling on December 8,
2014 (doc. 274) insofar as the Ruling dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Stone & Youngberg
Parties. The Court ruled that the Investors failed to demonstrate their standing to sue the Stone &
Youngberg parties. Id. at 7. Stone & Youngberg opposes the motion (doc. 304). The Funds filed
a reply brief (doc. 312) The Court has considered the Investors’ motion and all responsive briefs.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all
the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and
liabilities.
Fed. Rule Civ. P. 54(b). A Court retains jurisdiction over all claims in a suit and may alter its
earlier decisions until a final judgment has been issued. Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n v.
Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002). “District courts have
considerable discretion in deciding whether to reconsider an interlocutory order.” Keys v. Dean
Morris, LLP, 2013 WL 2387768, at *1 (M.D. La. May 30, 2013). “Although courts are
concerned with principles of finality and judicial economy, ‘the ultimate responsibility of the
1

federal courts, at all levels, is to reach the correct judgment under law.’” Id. (quoting Georgia
Pacific, LLC v. Heavy Machines, Inc., 2010 WL 2026670, at *2 (M.D. La. May 20, 2010)).
Nevertheless, “rulings should only be reconsidered where the moving party has presented
substantial reasons for reconsideration.” Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Co., 899 F. Supp.
282, 284 (M.D. La. 1995). Further, under 59(e), which also provides guidance as to the standard
applicable to a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration, Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n, Inc. v.
Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp.2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002), a court should only consider
altering or amending a judgment where the moving party meets the high burden of clearly
demonstrating a manifest error of law or fact, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change
in the law, or that the amendments is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice.
DISCUSSION
The Court’s previous ruling outlined the facts of this case (doc. 274), and it will not
recount those facts at length herein. After reviewing the Investors’ motion and the responsive
briefs, the Court refuses to reconsider its prior ruling. The Court’s prior ruling considered
whether the Investors had standing to assert the same claims as the Funds-Plaintiff against the
Stone & Youngberg Defendants. Here, the Investors repeat the same facts and arguments
previously stated in an attempt to distinguish its claims from those of the Funds. The Investors
do not provide new arguments or explanations that would convince the Court to grant the Motion
to Reconsider.
The reply brief attempts to bring in new evidence that is immaterial to the arguments that
were raised in the motion to reconsider (doc. 312, at 4-5). Further, the reply asks this Court to, in
the alternative, certify its ruling as a final judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of

2

Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. There is a policy of avoiding piecemeal appeals, and the reply brief
does not provide sufficient grounds for this Court to deviate from that policy.
CONCLUSION
Based on review of the relevant briefs, the Investors failed to provide substantial reasons
to convince this Court that it must reevaluate its previous ruling or certify its ruling as final.
Accordingly, the Investors’ Motion (doc. 289) to Reconsider or, in the Alternative, to
Certify Judgment as Final is DENIED.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on February 10, 2015.





JUDGE JAMES J. BRADY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3