United National Insurance Co v. Dexter Honore Construction Co L L C et al

Filing 67

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 62 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 62 Motion to Reurge. Signed by Judge Patricia Minaldi on 6/23/09. (crt,Kennedy, T)

IN LAKE CHARLES, LA

RECEIVED

JUN 2 3 2U09
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TONY R. MOORE. CLERK WESTERN DISTRICT OF I.OUISIANA

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DWISION

UNITED NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY VS.

:

DOCKET NO. 2:08 CV 638 JUDGE MINALDI

DEXTER HONORE CONSTRUCTION : MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAY COMPANY, LLC; FLUOR CORPORATION; AND FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC. MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Motion to Reurge Motion for Summary Judgment; or in the alternative, a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) [doc. 62], filed by United National Insurance Company (hereinafter "UnitedNational"). The motion seeks to alter or amend this Court's Memorandum Ruling finding that United National owed a duty to defend Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter "Fluor") in the underlying Grand Acadian' litigation.2 Dexter 1-lonore Construction Company, LLC (hereinafter "Dexter Honore") filed an opposition [doc. 63]. Defendant Fluor also filed an opposition [doc. 64]. United National did not file a Reply. Litigants may move to alter or amend a judgment, provided such a motion is "filed no later than 10 days after the entry of the judgment," Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).3 A motion to alter or amend

07-cv-295.
2

Mem. Ruling (April 27, 2009) [doc. 59].

~The motion to alter or amend judgment was timely filed pursuant to the time computation requirements of Fed. R. Civ. p. 6(a). Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to 1

ajudgment is an extraordinary remedy and is seldom granted. Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). A motion to alter or amend a judgment "is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised prior to the entry ofjudgment." Id. Rather, Rule 59(e) "serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Id. As both Dexter Honore and Fluor point out, United National's motion includes new arguments that were not previously raised in United National's opposition to Fluor's motion for partial summaryjudgment, [doc. 14], or in United National's briefs on its own motion for summary judgment [doc. 27]. United National asks this Court to alter or amend its judgment that addressed both ofthese motions for summaryjudgment. In the course ofbriefing these two motions, the parties filed a total of nine briefs, all of which this Court carefully considered. United National has not presented this Court with any reason as to why the various policy exclusions under which it now argues could not have been raised prior to the entry ofjudgment. United National does not present any newly discovered evidence or intervening changes in case law that would warrant this Court to revisit its ruling; accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that United National's motion, [doc. 62], is hereby DENIED. Lake Charles, Louisiana, this
~

day of

2009,

consider the Rule 59(e) motion.

US. Leather v. H&R P'ship, 60 F.3d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1995).
2