Schmidt v. Cal Dive International Inc et al

Filing 98

MEMORANDUM RULING re 91 Joint MOTION to Alter Judgment or Amend Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) filed by Andrea V Timpa, Joelle F Evans, Underwriters Severally Subscribing to Lloyds Policy PE09030008, Schonekas Evans McGoey & McEach in L L C, Kyle Schonekas and 92 MOTION for Reconsideration re 90 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, Order on Motion to Strike 89 Memorandum Ruling, filed by Thomas R Edwards Inc, Andrew Schmidt, Thomas R Edwards, Joseph Walker. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 6/20/2018. (crt,Crawford, A)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

ANDREW SCHMIDT

CASE NO. 6:15-CV-02526 (LEAD)
Applicable to All Member Cases

VERSUS

JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES

CAL DIVE INTERNATIONAL,
INC, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

RULING
Pending before the Court are two motions for reconsideration. [Doc. Nos. 91, 92]. Plaintiffs
Andrew Schmidt, Joseph Walker, Thomas Edwards, and Thomas R. Edwards, Inc. move the Court
to reconsider and vacate its prior Ruling and Order [Doc. Nos. 89, 90], whereby the Court
dismissed all claims of Plaintiffs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [Doc. No. 92] Defendant
Underwriters Severally Subscribing to Lloyds Policy PE 09030008 (“Defendant” or
“Underwriters”) 1 moves the Court to amend the same Ruling and Order, such that the dismissal is
“with prejudice” rather than “without prejudice.” 2 For the reasons that follow, the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs [Doc. No. 92] is DENIED, and the Motion for Reconsideration
filed by Defendant [Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED.
I.

Standard of Review
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for

reconsideration. Shepherd v. Int’l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Such motions

1

The second Motion for Reconsideration was originally filed by all Defendants. However, subsequent to submission
of the motion, Plaintiffs settled all claims with Kyle Schonekas, Joelle Evans, Andrea Timpa, and the firm of
Schonekas, Evans, McGoey and McEachin, LLC and dismissed those Defendants with prejudice. [Doc. Nos. 96, 97].
Thus, Underwriters is the only Defendant remaining in this matter.

2

The underlying Ruling and Order for which the parties seek reconsideration was issued by the Honorable Rebecca
F. Doherty prior to her retirement.

are generally analyzed under the standards for a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule
59(e), or a motion for relief from a judgment or order under Rule 60(b). Id. Rule 59(e) governs
when the motion for reconsideration is filed within twenty-eight days after entry of judgment;
otherwise, the motion is governed by Rule 60(b). Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177,
182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). In this matter, because the Motions for Reconsideration were filed within
twenty-eight days after entry of Judgment, the Court construes the motions under Rule 59(e).
“A rule 59(e) motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a judgment.’” Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303
F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). “[S]uch a motion 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. at 479. Rather, amending a judgment is appropriate under Rule 59(e): “(1) where there has been
an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered
evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact.” Demahy
at 182. “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be
used sparingly.” Templet at 479.
While a district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in
response to a motion for reconsideration arising under Rule 59(e), such discretion is not limitless.
Id. at 479 (citing Lavespere v. Niagra Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir.
1990)). The Fifth Circuit has identified two judicial imperatives relating to such a motion: “1) the
need to bring litigation to an end; and 2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the
facts.” Id. (citing Lavespere at 174).

Page 2 of 4

II.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs argue: (1) they set forth sufficient facts in their Complaint to state claims against

Defendants; (2) the Court erred in finding the language published by Defendants with regard to
attorneys Thomas Edwards and Joseph Walker was not defamatory; (3) the Court’s failure to
conduct any analysis of whether defamatory language was used against Plaintiff Schmidt warrants
reconsideration; (4) Plaintiffs adequately pleaded Defendants acted with malice; (5) the Court
erred in finding the statements at issue were protected by a qualified privilege, because the facts
alleged do rise to the level of “reckless disregard” and constitute an abuse of the privilege; (6) the
Court erred in finding Plaintiffs had not stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress; (7) the Court erred in finding Plaintiffs failed to state a claim of tortious interference with
a contract; (8) the Court erred in finding Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for breach of contract; (9)
the Court erred in finding Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for punitive damages; and (10) the Court
erred in not imposing sanctions against Defendants. Defendant opposes the motion, contending
Plaintiffs have failed to show any manifest errors of law or fact in the Court’s Ruling, and further
asserting Plaintiffs’ arguments are a “mere rehashing of the arguments that were made in the
briefing regarding the Motions to Dismiss,” and therefore the Motion for Reconsideration should
be denied. [Doc. No. 94 at 5].
Having considered Plaintiffs’ arguments, the Court finds no basis to alter, amend or rescind
its previous Ruling and Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No.
92] is DENIED.
III.

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration
Defendant moves the Court to amend its Ruling and Order “to change the dismissal of this

suit from ‘without prejudice’ to ‘with prejudice.’” [Doc. 91-1 at 3]. Defendant argues, “The

Page 3 of 4

grounds for the Court’s dismissal of all claims in this matter show that the dismissal was one ‘on
the merits,’ which Defendant[] believe[s] warrants a dismissal with prejudice.” Id. at 2 (emphasis
in original). Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing whether to grant a motion to dismiss with or
without prejudice is within the Court’s “inherent powers,” and therefore Defendant’s motion
should be denied. [Doc. No. 95 at 4] As the dismissal in this matter was an adjudication on the
merits, the dismissal should be with prejudice. See e.g. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452
U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981); Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977); Csorba v.
Varo, Inc., 58 F.3d 636 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration
[Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED.
IV.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 92] is

DENIED, and Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No. 91] is GRANTED. Accordingly,
the Court’s prior Ruling and Order [Doc. Nos. 89 & 90] are AMENDED to reflect the dismissal
of Plaintiffs’ claims is WITH PREJUDICE.
Signed in Monroe, Louisiana, this 20th day of June, 2018.

ROBERT G. JAMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 4 of 4