Union Pacific Railroad Co v. Taylor Truck Line Inc et al

Filing 360

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 348 Motion for New Trial and/or to Alter or Amend Judgment and/or in the Alternative, for Relief under Rule 60 and/or for Clarification of Ruling and Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 9/13/2017. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0074

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

TAYLOR TRUCK LINE, INC., ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

--(consolidated with)-R & L BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC., ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2460

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,
ET AL.

MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a “Motion for New Trial and/or to Alter or Amend Judgment
and/or in the Alternative, for Relief under Rule 60 and/or for Clarification of Ruling and Judgment”
(“Rule 54(b) Motion”) [Doc. No. 348] filed by Defendants Daniel Shackleford, College City
Leasing, LLC, Taylor Truck Lines, Inc., Taylor Logistics, Inc., and Taylor Consolidated, Inc.
(collectively, “the Taylor Entities”). The Taylor Entities move the Court to reconsider its July 13,
2017 Ruling and Judgment [Doc. Nos. 343 & 344] granting Plaintiff Union Pacific Railroad
Company’s (“Union Pacific”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of Preemption of
Liability for Additional Signs or Signalization at the Crossing [Doc. No. 190]. The Court held that
federal preemption bars any claims or defenses that Union Pacific was negligent by failing to provide
additional signs or signals at the Crossing to warn of low ground clearance.

The Taylor Entities argue that the Court committed manifest error of law because a low
ground clearance sign does not fall within the definitions of active or passive warning signs under
the Federal Railway Safety Act, and there is no federal law or regulation on the use or placement of
low ground clearance signs. Accordingly, the Taylor Entities argue that state law controls, and they
can assert a defense of negligence against Union Pacific.
Alternatively, the Taylor Entities seek clarification of the scope of the Court’s ruling.
Specifically, they ask the Court to address whether their expert, Alan Blackwell (“Blackwell”), can
offer testimony at trial regarding the need for the Union Pacific trains to reduce speed or to remove
the track from service until a low ground clearance sign was posted.
In response, Union Pacific argues that the Taylor Entities have not presented a mistake of fact
or law, new evidence, injustice, or change in the controlling law that would support the Court’s
reconsideration of its judgment. Union Pacific further contends that a motion to clarify is not
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the remedy sought extends beyond the
Court’s ruling on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
No reply memorandum was filed.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a motion for reconsideration per se.
Instead, a motion challenging a judgment or order may be filed under Rules 54, 59, or 60. Rules 59
and 60 apply only to final judgments. Rule 54(b) provides that any order “that adjudicates fewer
than all the claims... [among] all the parties... may be revised at any time before the entry of a [final]
judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). “Under Rule 54[(b)], a district court has the inherent procedural
power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.”
Iturralde v. Shaw Grp., Inc., 512 F. App’x 430, 432 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Melancon v. Texaco,
2

Inc., 659 F2.d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981)) (citations omitted); see generally Moses H. Cone Mem’l
Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 n. 14 (1983) (holding that “virtually all interlocutory
orders may be altered or amended before final judgment if sufficient cause is shown”). An “order
granting partial summary judgment [is] interlocutory,” and, therefore, the Court must “analyze[] the
motion for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) . . . instead of Rule 59(e), which applies to final
judgments.” Cabral v. Brennan, 853 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2017). Courts evaluate motions to
reconsider interlocutory orders under a “less exacting” standard than Rule 59(e), but, nevertheless,
look to similar considerations for guidance. See HBM Interests, LLC v. Chesapeake Louisiana, LP,
No. 12-1048, 2013 WL 3893989 (W.D. La. July 26, 2013) (quoting Livingston Downs Racing Ass’n,
Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002)); Sw. Louisiana Hosp.
Ass’n v. BASF Const. Chemicals, LLC, No. 2:10-CV-902, 2013 WL 1858610 (W.D. La. Apr. 29,
2013) (quoting Livingston Downs, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 475). Therefore, in determining whether to
grant the motion, the Court evaluates whether there are “manifest errors of law or fact upon which
judgment is based[,]” whether “new evidence” is available, whether there is a need “to prevent
manifest injustice,” or whether there has been “an intervening change in controlling law.” HBM
Interests, 2013 WL 3893989, at *1 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
In this case, the Court finds no basis to reconsider or rescind its previous Ruling and
Judgment. The Court has already considered all arguments raised by the Taylor Entities before
ruling that their claim regarding the low clearance warning sign was preempted. The Taylor Entities
do not point to any change in the controlling or new evidence to support their motion, but merely
rehash their previous arguments. Therefore, the Court finds no reason to reconsider its Ruling and
Judgment.
3

Further, the Court finds no need to offer “clarification” because the Ruling and Judgment are
clear that the Taylor Entities cannot rely on the defense that Union Pacific was negligent in failing
to post a low clearance warning sign.1
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 13th day of September, 2017.

1

To the extent that the Taylor Entities contend that the combination of conditions required
the Union Pacific crew to reduce speed, the Court has issued a separate Ruling and Judgment on
Union Pacific’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Speed.
4