Smith v. Union National Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 60 Motion for Reconsideration re 59 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Marshall Funeral Home, Inc. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on April 11, 2016 (dsl)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION JEANETTA SMITH, A/K/A JEANETTE SMITH v. PLAINTIFF CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-9-KS-RHW UNION NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, KEMPER CORPORATION D/B/A KEMPER HOME SERVICE COMPANIES AND JOHN AND JANE DOES A-F UNION NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIMANT/ THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF v. SANDRA CARTER, MARSHALL FUNERAL HOME, INC., and C & J FINANCIAL, LLC THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS ORDER This matter is before the Court on Third-Party Defendant Marshall Funeral Home, Inc.’s (“Marshall”) Motion for Reconsideration [60], in which Marshall asks the court to reconsider its previous ruling on its Motion for Summary Judgment [49]. In support of its motion, Marshall advances two arguments. First, it argues that Third-Party Plaintiff Union National Life Insurance Company (“Union National”) has produced no evidence to show that Sandra Carter was the proper beneficiary, and that the Court should therefore accept as true that Jeanette Smith was the proper beneficiary under the life insurance policy in dispute. Marshall ignores, however, that, as the movant on summary judgment, it is its burden to produce evidence showing that Jeanette Smith was the proper beneficiary, which it did not do. The only evidence presented by Marshall of this fact was a self-serving affidavit from its own funeral director, who would not have had first-hand knowledge of the identity of the proper beneficiary. In the current motion, Marshall once again asks the Court to decide an ultimate issue of fact in this case on the basis of this affidavit, before discovery has even begun. The Court will not do so. The only other argument Marshall advances in support of its Motion for Reconsideration [60] is an argument that the law precludes a recovery against it, as a recovery would put it in a worse situation than it would have been in if Union National had not paid them at all. Even if this argument were persuasive, it was not introduced in Marshall’s original motion for summary judgment. As such, it is not appropriately presented in a motion for reconsideration. See Templet v. Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (A motion for reconsideration is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”). Because Marshall has presented no persuasive argument as to why the Court should reconsider its previous ruling, its Motion for Reconsideration [60] will be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Marshall’s Motion for Reconsideration [60] is denied. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 11th day of April, 2016. s/Keith Starrett UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?