Richardson v. Pearl River Valley Opportunity, Inc.
Filing
26
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on 3/14/2016 (scp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
VONCILLE RICHARDSON
v.
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-139-KS-MTP
PEARL RIVER VALLEY OPPORTUNITY, INC.
A MISSISSIPPI CORPORATION
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintif Voncille Richardson’s Motion for Reconsideration
[20]. After considering the submissions of the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court
finds that this motion is not well taken and should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
This action was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Marion County, Mississippi, on
September 18, 2015. Plaintiff Voncille Richardson’s (“Plaintiff”) claims against Defendant all stem
from the alleged denial of benefits owed to her under a retirement plan Defendant Pearl River Valley
Opportunity, Inc., (“Defendant”) offered to its employees.
Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 1981. (Employment Application [15-5].) Plaintiff
enrolled in the subject retirement plan in 1995. (Enrollment Form [15-3].) Plaintiff contributed to
the plan until her employment with Defendant ended in 1999. (Contributions [7-3].) Documentation
shows that Plaintiff requested a withdrawal of her funds in the plan upon the end of her employment
in 1999, and received a lump sum payment of $5,669.48, which brought the balance of her plan
down to $0. (Withdrawal Form [7-1]; Account Statement [7-2].) Plaintiff, however, denies her
signature on the documentation and denies ever receiving this payment. (Plaintiff Affidavit [12-1].)
In 2015, Plaintiff attempted to commence drawing benefits from her retirement plan. After
having no success, she filed the current action in state court. On October 23, 2015, Defendant
removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(b), on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed her Motion to Dismiss and Remand [6] on December 8, 2015,
and Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment [7] on December 22, 2015. The Court
subsequently denied Plaintiff Motion to Dismiss and Remand [6] and granted Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment [7] in its Order [17] on January 28, 2016. Final judgment was entered
against Plaintiff on that same date.
Plaintiff filed the current Motion for Reconsideration [20] on February 17, 2016. The Court
has considered this motion and is now ready to rule.
II. DISCUSSION
“A motion asking the court to reconsider a prior ruling is evaluated . . . as a motion . . . under
Rule 59(e) . . . [when] filed within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment . . . .” Demahy v.
Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). Because
Plaintiff’s motion was filed within this time-frame, it will be analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e).
“A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v.
Hydrochem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). There are three grounds for altering or
amending a judgment under Rule 59(e): “(1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice.” Williamson Pounders Architects, P.C., 681 F. Supp. 2d 766, 767
(N.D. Miss. 2008). Rule 59(e) motions are “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment,” Templet,
367 F.3d at 478, and they “should not be used to . . . re-urge matters that have already been advanced
2
by a party.” Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 F.App’x 359, 364 (5th Cir. 2009).
Reconsideration of a previous order is “an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id.
The sole argument for reconsideration that Plaintiff presents is that discovery had not been
completed and was in fact stayed when the Motion for Summary Judgment [7] was filed and
subsequently granted. Plaintiff does not, however, explain why she did not present this argument
in response to the original motion. Plaintiff was free to invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(d) and argue that she had not had enough time to gather evidence of her claims through discovery
when she first submitted her arguments against summary judgment. Whether or not this argument
would have been successful is irrelevant. Plaintiff could have and should have brought the argument
before judgment was entered against her. As such, reconsideration of the Court’s previous order will
not be granted on this argument.
See Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [20] will therefore be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [20] is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 14th day of March, 2016.
s/ Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?