Isom v. Valley Forge Insurance Company et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 71 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Keith Starrett on September 9, 2016 (dsl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN M. ISOM
V.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16-CV-109-KS-MTP

VALLEY FORGE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court the Motion for Reconsideration [71] filed by Plaintiff
Jonathan M. Isom. 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
On January 4, 2016, Plaintiff Jonathan M. Isom (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the Circuit
Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi. The Complaint [1-1] was signed
by his attorney, Halbert E. Dockins, Jr. (“Dockins”). Though Dockins’ address is not listed on the
Complaint [1-1] as required by both the federal and Mississippi rules of procedures, the Court is
aware that his office is in Jackson, Mississippi, and that Dockins is licensed to practice in the state
of Mississippi. (See Civil Cover Sheet [1-5].) Underneath the signature line of the Complaint [1-1],
under the heading “Of Counsel and pending Pro Hac Vice,” the names, addresses, and phone
numbers of Willie E. Gary, Esq. (“Gary”), and James L. Brown, Esq. (“Brown”), were listed.
On February 3, 2016, Defendants Valley Forge Insurance Company and Transportation
Insurance Company (collectively “Defendants”)1 removed the case to this Court and filed their

1

This action was also brought against Defendants Gathering Insurance Services, LLC, and
CNA Financial Corporation, but neither had been served with process when the relevant motions
were filed. CNA Financial Corporation has since been dismissed from the case for failure to
1

Motion to Disqualify [2], claiming, inter alia, that Gary and Brown engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law by allowing their names, addresses, and phone numbers to appear on the Complaint
[1-1], and requesting the Court disqualify the attorneys and their law firms and to strike the
Complaint [1-1] from the record. No response to this motion was filed by Plaintiff.
On April 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed motions for the pro hac vice admission of both Gary and
Brown. The Court granted pro hac vice admission to Brown, but denied it to Gary based on a failure
to file a certificate of good standing. Defendants filed their Response in Opposition [19] to
Plaintiff’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17] with respect to Gary on April 5, 2016, and filed their
Motion to Revoke [21] with respect to Brown on April 7, 2016. Plaintiff submitted no response
to either of these filings, and submitted their Supplemental Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [26] on
April 15, 2016.
At no point did Plaintiff ever file on the record any response to Defendants’ arguments
that his attorneys should be disqualified and should not be granted pro hac vice status.
On August 5, 2016, the Court entered an Order [67] granting in part and denying in part
the Motion to Disqualify [2], denying the Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice [17], and granting the
Motion to Revoke [21]. Gary and Brown were both disqualified from continuing in this case.
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).
Reconsideration [71] was filed within this twenty-eight day period.

serve process.
2

Plaintiff’s Motion for

“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. v. Tunica Cnty., Miss., 681
F.Supp.2d 766, 767 (N.D. Miss. 2008). Plaintiff’s motion is premised on the need to correct a clear
error of law. 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.
Plaintiff’s argument should have properly been brought after Defendants’ motions were filed,
but Plaintiff submitted no such response. The Court will not alter its previous ruling to consider
arguments which Plaintiff had a previous opportunity to make and which he completely failed to
advance. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [71] will therefore be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration [71] is denied.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 9th day of September, 2016.
s/Keith Starrett
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3