Shepherd v. City of Shreveport et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 45 Motion for Reconsideration re 43 Order on Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge S Maurice Hicks on 3/7/2017. (crt,Dauterive, C)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION

MARJORIE SHEPHERD

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2623

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

CITY OF SHREVEPORT, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 45) filed by
Plaintiff Marjorie Shepherd (“Shepherd”). Shepherd asks that she be permitted leave of
court to file a response to Defendants’ objections to her Motion to Supplement and that the
Court reconsider its April 1, 2016 order and permit the filing of all or part of her
Supplemental Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

See id.

Defendants oppose the instant Motion for Reconsideration. See Record Document 51.
Rule 54(b) provides that an order that adjudicates fewer than all the claims among
the parties “may be revised at any time” before the entry of a final judgment. F.R.C.P.
54(b); Nierman v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., No. CIV.A. 10-0319, 2012 WL 1039683, at *3 (W.D.
La. Mar. 28, 2012). Thus, Rule 54(b) is the proper procedural vehicle to request that a
district court reconsider an interlocutory order and the Court construes the instant motion
as a Rule 54(b) motion. The Court must determine whether reconsideration is necessary
under the relevant circumstances. See Nierman, 2012 WL 1039683, at *3. While the legal
standard for evaluating a motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) appears to be less
exacting than that imposed by Rules 59 and 60, considerations similar to those under
Rules 59 and 60 inform the Court’s analysis. See id. The considerations include whether

the movant is attempting to rehash its previously made arguments or is attempting to raise
an argument for the first time without justification. See id., citing Valles v. Frazier, No. 08501, 2009 WL 4639679, *2 (W.D.Tex. Nov. 30, 2009).
The Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 22) has been extensively
briefed. The Court’s review of Shepherd’s supplemental opposition and the instant motion
for reconsideration reveal that Shepherd is attempting to raise new arguments, and likely
new substantive claims, relating to the conduct of dispatchers and firefighters. The
supplemental filing also relies upon new expert opinion. There is insufficient justification
for these arguments, claims, and new expert evidence to be raised for the first time in a
supplemental filing. As a whole, the Court does not believe that reconsideration is
necessary under the relevant circumstances.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Shepherd’s Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 45)
be and is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 7th day of March, 2017.

Page 2 of 2