Pro-Logistics Forwarding (Pty) Ltd. v. Robison Tire Co, Inc.

Filing 126

ORDER denying 112 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on April 2, 2014. (js)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
PRO-LOGISTICS FORWARDING (PTY) LTD
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO.:2:13-cv-83-KS-MTP

ROBISON TIRE CO., INC.

DEFENDANT/
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF

v.
OVERLAND VENTURES, LLC and
PAUL FERRUZZA

THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS
ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider [112] filed by Paul
Ferruzza and Overland Ventures, LLC. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court
finds that the Motion should be denied.
Pro-Logistics filed its Complaint [1] against Robison Tire on April 25, 2013. On June 3,
2013, Robison Tire filed its Third-Party Complaint [10] against Ferruzza and Overland Ventures.
On January 10, 2014, Ferruzza and Overland Ventures filed a Third-Party Complaint [80]
against Giant Tyres USA, LLC, Midwest Coal, LLC, A&B Retreading, LLC, Adkins Tires,
LLC, and Jason Adkins (“Adkins Defendants”).
On January 27, 2014, Pro-Logistics filed a Motion to Sever Third-Party Complaints [86].
On March 5, 2014, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Sever. See Order
[111]. The Court found that Robison Tire’s third-party claims against Ferruzza and Overland
Ventures should not be severed, but found that Ferruzza and Overland Ventures’s third-party
claims against the Adkins Defendants should be severed. Ferruzza and Overland Ventures now

1

seek to have this Court reconsider its Order [111]. Ferruzza and Overland Ventures request the
Court to sever Robison Tire’s third-party claims against Ferruzza and Overland Ventures from
the original action, Civil Action No.: 2:13-cv-83, and combine the claims with the severed
action, Civil Action No.: 2:14-cv-31.
Ferruzza and Overland Ventures seek this relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). This Court enjoys the inherent power to “reconsider, rescind, or modify an
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551,
553 (5th Cir. 1981). Generally, “motions to reconsider are analyzed under Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Morgan v. Mississippi, 2009 WL 1809417, at *2 (S.D. Miss.
June 23, 2009). This Court has “considerable discretion” in deciding whether to grant a motion
for reconsideration. See Edward H. Bohlin Co. V. Baning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).
Granting a motion for reconsideration, however, “is an extraordinary remedy and should be used
sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2004). “Motions to
reconsider are not appropriate to raise arguments that could or should have been made previously
or to re-urge matters that a court has already considered.” Centre One v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
2010 WL 3257642, *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2010); Morgan, 2009 WL 1809417, at *2; Marseilles
Homeowners Condominium Ass’n Inc. V. Fidelity Nat. Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir.
2008).
There are three grounds for which this Court may grant a motion for reconsideration: “(1)
an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not presently
available, and (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Morgan,
2009 WL 1809417, at *2 (citation omitted). Ferruzza and Overland Ventures have failed to

2

present any of these grounds.
First, it should be noted that Ferruzza and Overland Ventures did not object to ProLogistics’s Motion to Sever. The arguments found in he Motion to Reconsider could, and
should, have been included in a response to the Motion to Sever. Notwithstanding Ferruzza and
Overland Ventures’s failure to timely present their objections, the arguments set forth in the
Motion do not present any meritorious reason for reconsideration.
Ferruzza and Overland Ventures argue that Robison Tire is a “key witness to the facts of
this matter and this case against the Adkins Defendants cannot be prosecuted without Robison.”
See Memo [113]. Ferruzza and Overland Ventures, however, have failed to present any reason
their case against the Adkins Defendants cannot be prosecuted without Robison Tire as a party.
Robison Tire may possess information relevant to their claims, but Ferruzza and Overland
Ventures may gather information from Robison Tire via the discovery process without Robison
Tire’s presence as a party in the severed action.
Finally, the Court’s Order [111] does not create any manifest injustice or undue
prejudice. The separate cases are at very different stages of development. The parties in the
original case have engaged in significant discovery and should be ready for trial as scheduled.
On the other hand, the claims and defenses in the severed action are in their infancy. In fact, the
Adkins Defendants are challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and Ferruzza and Overland Ventures
have moved to disqualify the Adkins Defendants’ counsel. See Motions [107] [112]. Progress in
the severed action will be delayed pending disposition of those motions.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Ferruzza and Overland Ventures’s Motion to
Reconsider [112] is DENIED.

3

SO ORDERED this the 2nd day of April, 2014.
/s/MICHAEL T. PARKER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4