Sapienza v. Trahan, et al

Filing 250

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 247 Second Motion for Reconsideration re 243 Memorandum Ruling and Order on Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 4/9/2019. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION
RICHARD SAPIENZA

CASE NO. 6:16-CV-01701

VERSUS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA

TRAHAN ET AL

BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently pending is a Second Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), filed by Plaintiffs, Richard Sapienza
(“Sapienza”), individually and/or derivatively as member and manager on behalf of
Advanced Applied Research, LLC (“AAR”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), as well as a
Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in support thereof [Rec. Docs. 247, 248]. The
Court has reviewed and considered the motion for reconsideration, as well as the
lengthy proposed memorandum in support thereof and all attachments thereto, none
of which contain new information not already considered by the Court and detailed
in prior rulings herein.1 Plaintiffs argue that the Court applied the wrong standard to
the previous motion for reconsideration and stress that “Rule 54(b) permits the ‘trial
court . . . to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient . .

This includes the attached psychological evaluation [Rec. Doc. 247-4], which Plaintiffs’ counsel
submitted to the Court for in camera review on November 15, 2018, prior to the issuance of the
Court’s ruling on the Defendants’ dispositive motion, which is one of the subjects of the instant
motion for reconsideration.
1

1

. .”2 Although Plaintiffs’ counsel argues that her personal circumstances and related
diagnosis with “major depressive disorder” during the pendency of this litigation
warrant relief,3 the Court has specifically and repeatedly considered that argument,
granted relief where appropriate throughout these proceedings, and ultimately
rejected it as the basis for seeking the relief again sought herein.4 The Court
recognizes the interlocutory nature of the rulings made subject of the instant and
prior motions for reconsideration, as well as “the inherent power of the rendering
district court to afford such relief from interlocutory judgments . . . as justice
requires.”5 As detailed throughout the record in this matter, however, the Court has
considered – and reconsidered –Plaintiffs’ arguments and has not and does not find
any reason, or combination of reasons, to be sufficient for the Court to reconsider
the dispositive ruling issued herein. As outlined in both the rulings on the dispositive
motions, as well as the previous motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that
reconsidering the rulings, “which clearly and carefully considered each of the

2

Rec. Doc. 247-1, p. 14 (quoting Cabral v. Brennan, 853 F.3d 763, 766 n.3 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation
omitted)).
3
Rec. Doc. 247-1, pp. 17 and 18-26.
4
See, e.g., Rec. Doc. 243, pp. 4-5 n.17 (“While Plaintiffs’ counsel’s circumstances are unfortunate,
and certainly do not themselves constitute carelessness, the extent to which counsel has allowed
those circumstances to affect her representation in this case, despite the Court’s leniency
surrounding missed deadlines herein, does rise to the level of carelessness.”).
5
Dow Chem., USA v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n, 464 F. Supp. 904, 906 (W.D. La. 1979);
see also Cabral, 853 F.3d at 766 n.3 (Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25–26 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(explaining that the higher standard in Rule 59(e) reflects the fact that judgment has already been
entered, while the “more flexible” Rule 54(b) standard reflects the district court’s inherent power
to grant relief from interlocutory orders “as justice requires.”) (citing Dow Chem., supra)).
2

arguments now before the Court, would unfairly penalize Defendants because of
Plaintiffs’ dilatory conduct and failure to pay proper attention to this litigation.”6
Regardless of which standard the Court applies, the Court remains unpersuaded that
Plaintiffs are entitled to reconsideration. Accordingly, the motions [Rec. Docs. 247,
248] are DENIED.
Signed at Lafayette, Louisiana on this 9th day of April, 2019.

____________________________________
PATRICK J. HANNA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6

Rec. Doc. 243, p. 10.
3