Holloway v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 59, [Doc. No. 57], is DENIED. 57 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 2/7/18. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,
) Case No 4:15CV1741 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 [Doc. No. 57]. Defendant opposes the
Motion, and has filed a responsive memorandum thereto. For the reasons set forth
below, the Motion is denied.
On July 13, 2017, the Court entered its Opinion, Memorandum and Order
granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed
the instant motion.
ARule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it >may not be
used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could
have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.= 11 C. Wright & A. Miller,
Federal Practice and Procedure ' 2810.1, pp. 127-128 (2d ed.1995) (footnotes
omitted).@ Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 2617, n. 5
Rule 59(e) was adopted to clarify that Athe district court possesses the power
to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of
judgment.@ White v. New Hampshire Dep=t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450,
102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover,
ARule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.@ Innovative Home Health Care,
Inc. v. P.T .-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.
1998),(internal punctuation and citations omitted). ASuch motions cannot be used
to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which
could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.@ United States v.
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting
Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at 1286)).
District courts Awill ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration unless the
party demonstrates a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or demonstrates
new facts or legal authority that the party could not have previously produced with
reasonable diligence to the court.@ ElderBKeep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 988 (8th
Cir.2006); Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 2011 WL 322672 at
*4 (E.D.Mo. Jan.31, 2011); Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721
(8th Cir.2010). A motion to reconsider Acannot be used to raise arguments which
could have been raised prior to the issuance of judgment.@ Hagerman v. Yukon
Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir.1988). District courts have Abroad
discretion@ in determining whether to reconsider judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the Court committed manifest error in
discussing the general summary judgment standard that requires more than a
“scintilla” of evidence to overcome a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff argues
that in the context of claims under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA),
“slight” or “minimal” evidence is sufficient to raise a jury question of negligence.
The Court’s Opinion, however, details the basis upon which the conclusion
was reached that the record established that there are no disputed facts which give
rise to questions for a jury to resolve. Plaintiff’s argument is based on a mistaken
belief that the Court found a scintilla of evidence but concluded that that evidence
was insufficient to overcome summary judgment.
Likewise, Plaintiff’s argument that the Court erred in its application of
Local Rule 7-4.01(E) fails to provide any relief to Plaintiff. In its discussion, the
Court set out its basis for the conclusion that Plaintiff failed to comply with the
Local Rule and the effect thereof.
The Court articulated its reasoning in concluding that the record established
that Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has presented nothing which
requires an alteration or amendment of this conclusion. under Rule 59(e).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend a
Judgment Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 59, [Doc. No. 57], is DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of February, 2018.
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?