June Medical Services LLC et al v. Caldwell et al
Filing
493
ORDER denying 490 MOTION for Reconsideration of 487 Emergency MOTION to Vacate 275 Judgment filed by Courtney N. Phillips. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 7/5/2022. (JEG)
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES LLC, ET
AL.
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 14-525-JWD-RLB
COURTNEY PHILLIPS, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Health
RULING AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
of her Emergency Motion to Vacate (Doc. 490) (“Motion for Reconsideration”). Plaintiffs oppose
the motion. (Doc. 492). Oral argument is not necessary. The Court has carefully considered the
law, the facts in the record, and the arguments and submissions of the parties and is prepared to
rule. For the following reasons, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
I.
Relevant Background
On June 27, 2022, Defendant moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) that the
Court modify the judgment and vacate the permanent injunction entered in this matter in light of
the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., __ S. Ct. ___, 2022 WL
2276808 (June 24, 2022). (Doc. 487 at 1.)
Defendants prayed that the relief be granted
immediately, or, in the alternative, two days later on June 29, 2022. (Id. at 2.)
On June 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. (Doc. 488.) The heart of their argument
was that a “subsequent change in the underlying law in a different case is not a sufficient basis to
vacate a permanent injunction; if it were, it would leave nearly every final ruling by the federal
courts open to later re-litigation.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiffs sought denial of the motion, or, in the
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 2 of 6
alternative, “an additional twenty-one days to respond in order to have a more reasonable
opportunity to brief the issues fully.” (Id. at 5.)
On June 29, 2022, this Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion without prejudice
and allowing further briefing on the issue. (Id. at 489.) The Court specifically said in relevant part:
Considering Defendant's Emergency Rule 60(b) Motion to Vacate
Permanent Injunction (Doc. 487), IT IS ORDERED that the motion
is DENIED IN PART and DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN
PART. That part of Defendant's motion seeking expedited relief is
denied. The subject of this motion is a matter of considerable
importance to the State and its citizens and involves complicated
issues of procedural and substantive law. The Court finds that
granting this motion with only two days consideration is
unreasonable and unwarranted. However, Defendant's motion to
dissolve the permanent injunction in this matter is denied without
prejudice. The Court will take up this issue after full briefing is
submitted by the parties in compliance with and within the deadlines
established by this Courts local rules.
(Id.)
On June 29, 2022, Defendant filed the instant motion seeking reconsideration of this
Court’s denial in light of Whole Woman’s Health v. Young, __ F.4th __, 2022 WL 2315034 (5th
Cir. June 28, 2022), where the Fifth Circuit vacated an injunction in light of Dobbs. (Doc. 490 at
1.) Defendant maintains that, as in Young, the Supreme Court’s finding that there is no federal
constitutional right to an abortion and overruling of the “undue burden” standard means that there
are no grounds to sustain this Court’s prior injunction. (Doc. 490-1 at 2.) Moreover, here, says
Defendant, the case for vacating the injunction is even stronger than in Young, as this Court already
found that “Act 620 passes rational basis review.” (Id. (quoting Doc. 138 at 18).) Defendant prayed
that the Court grant the order by June 30, 2022. (Doc. 490 at 1.)
On June 30, 2022, this Court issued an abbreviated briefing schedule. (Doc. 491.) Plaintiffs
had until noon on July 1, 2022, to respond. (Id.)
2
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 3 of 6
Plaintiffs then timely filed their response. (Doc. 492.) Plaintiffs contend that “Defendant’s
motion fails to cite a single authority that stands for the proposition that a court has abused its
discretion or committed clear error when it orders the parties to submit briefing under the usual
timeline provided in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” (Id. at 1.)
Further, Young is
distinguishable, as it involved a direct appeal rather than a motion to dissolve a permanent
injunction under Rule 60(b)(5). (Id.) Moreover, Young was decided after full briefing, oral
argument, and supplemental briefing from the parties. (Id. at 2–3.)
Plaintiffs prayed that
Defendant’s emergency motion for reconsideration be denied.
II.
Relevant Standard
“A motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling is evaluated either as a motion to
‘alter or amend a judgment’ under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for ‘relief from a final judgment,
order, or proceeding’ under Rule 60(b).” Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2
(5th Cir. 2012). “The rule under which the motion is considered is based on when the motion was
filed.” Id. (citing Texas A & M Research Found. v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 400 (5th
Cir. 2003)). “If the motion was filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of the judgment, the
motion is treated as though it was filed under Rule 59, and if it was filed outside of that time, it is
analyzed under Rule 60.” Id. (citing Texas A & M Research Found., 338 F.3d at 400). Here, the
Motion for Reconsideration was filed a day after this Court’s denial, (Doc. 490), so the Rule 59(e)
standard applies.
The Fifth Circuit “review[s] a district court's decision on a Rule 59 motion to reconsider
for abuse of discretion.” Allen v. Envirogreen Landscape Pros., Inc., 721 F. App'x 322, 328 (5th
Cir. 2017), as revised (Dec. 7, 2017) (citing In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456, 462 (5th
Cir. 2017)). “Under this standard of review, the district court's decision and decision-making
3
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 4 of 6
process need only be reasonable.” Id. (quoting Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th
Cir. 2004) (citing Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1994))). “But to the
extent that a ruling involved a reconsideration of a question of law, ‘the standard of review is de
novo.’ ” Id. (quoting Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted)).
“Rule 59(e) motions serve ‘the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’ ” Id. (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at
478 (quoting Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989))). “Reconsideration of
a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. (quoting
Templet, 367 F.3d at 479 (citation omitted)). “Accordingly, a motion for reconsideration ‘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. (quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479). A court should
grant a motion for reconsideration if (1) the court “is presented with newly discovered evidence[,]”
(2) the Court “has committed clear error[,]” (3) “if the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or
(4) there is a “change in controlling law.” Allen v. Envirogreen Landscape Pros., Inc., No. 14-506,
2016 WL 6877742, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov. 21, 2016) (deGravelles, J.), aff'd, 721 F. App'x 322 (5th
Cir. 2017), as revised (Dec. 7, 2017).
III.
Law and Analysis
Having carefully considered the matter, the Court will deny the Motion for
Reconsideration. In short, the Court finds that Defendant has not satisfied any of the grounds for
obtaining the relief she seeks.
The Motion for Reconsideration principally relies on the fourth category—a change in
controlling law brought by Young—but this falls short. A review of the record in Young shows
that the procedural history in that case is substantially different than the instant one. In Young, a
4
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 5 of 6
notice of appeal was filed in September 2018 (Young, No. 18-50730 (5th Cir.), Doc. 1.) The matter
was extensively briefed by the parties and amici from November 2018 to June 2019, (id., Docs.
39, 45, 47, 48, 51, 52, 55, 70, 74, 76, 95, 97, 98), before being stayed in October 2019 pending the
Supreme Court’s decision in the instant case, (id., Doc. 105). Further briefing was ordered in light
of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the instant case in June 2020, (id., Doc. 119), and such briefing
was filed in July and August 2020, (id., Docs. 126, 127, 130, 132, 136). The Fifth Circuit then
issued the ruling relied upon by Defendant in July 2022. (Id., Doc. 145.) Thus, unlike the instant
case, Young was decided on direct appeal after exhaustive briefing, not on a Rule 60(b) motion on
an extremely expedited basis. Consequently, no controlling change in the law by Young warrants
a reversal of this Court’s denial.
The remaining three categories are easily dispensed with. Defendant does not rely on any
newly discovered evidence. More importantly, this Court’s order was not clearly erroneous or
manifestly unjust. The Court did not deny Defendant the underlying relief it sought; it merely
found that, considering the importance of this matter and the procedural issues involved with Rule
60(b), the Court would not grant Defendant relief without an opportunity for full briefing, by both
sides.
The Court notes in closing that, having reviewed Dobbs and Young, Plaintiffs appear to
have an uphill battle. Defendant’s underlying motion turns on the extent to which Rule 60(b)(5)
is the proper vehicle for overturning a permanent injunction that has remained in place for years
because of a Supreme Court decision in another case that has severely undercut it. There appears
to be ample authority for the view that vacating the permanent injunction is appropriate in this
situation because the relief is no longer equitable. See 11 Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &
Procedure (Wright & Miller) § 2863 & n.31 (3d ed. 2022) (“Because the standard is an exacting
5
Case 3:14-cv-00525-JWD-RLB
Document 493
07/05/22 Page 6 of 6
one, many applications for relief on this ground are denied[.] . . . But on an adequate showing the
courts will provide relief if it no longer is equitable that the judgment be enforced, whether because
of subsequent legislation, a change in the decisional law, or a change in the operative facts.
(emphasis added)).
But that is a question for another day. Here, Defendant has not shown that the Court abused
its discretion or manifestly erred in allowing Plaintiffs (and Defendant) a full opportunity to brief
the issue—and certainly on more than two days’ notice and a near ex parte basis. This is
particularly true considering the fact that granting these motions is an “extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Allen, 721 F. App’x at 328 (cleaned up).
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of her
Emergency Motion to Vacate (Doc. 490) is DENIED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 5, 2022.
S
JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
6
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?