Gonzales v. Pan American Laboratories LLC et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying #57 Motion for New Trial (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 11/21/2017) (chmb) Modified document type and text on 11/21/2017 (ykp).

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CHRISTOPHER GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. PAN AMERICAN LABORATORIES, L.L.C.; PAMLAB, L.L.C.; AND NESTLE HEALTH SCIENCE-PAMLAB, INC., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2787-L MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 56), filed November 17, 2017. For the reasons herein stated, the court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 56). Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a); however, there was no trial in this matter. Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants were adjudicated by summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial is, therefore, more properly characterized as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e). See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997) (motion to alter or amend under Rule 59(e) is proper motion to contest summary judgment); Patin v. Allied Signal Inc., 77 F.3d 782, 785 n.1 (5th Cir. 1990) (motion to reconsider entry of summary judgment properly styled a Rule 59(e) motion). A motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). Amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is appropriate: “(1) where there has been an intervening Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 1 change in the controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact.” Demahy, 702 F.3d at 182 (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)). Rule 59(e), however, is “not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before entry of judgment,” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478, and may not be used to relitigate issues that were resolved to the movant’s dissatisfaction. Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989). District courts have “considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion to alter a judgment.” Hale v. Townley, 45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995). In exercising this discretion, a district court must “strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Id. With this balance in mind, the Fifth Circuit has observed that Rule 59(e) “favor[s] the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” Southern Constructors Group, Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). Reconsideration of a judgment under Rule 59(e) is, therefore, considered “an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 479. Plaintiff’s motion simply restates the factual and legal arguments previously rejected by the court in ruling on Defendants’ summary judgment motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is an improper attempt to relitigate matters previously resolved to his dissatisfaction. Moreover, the court determines that no manifest error of law or fact was committed that requires correction. Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial (Doc. 56) is, therefore, denied. It is so ordered this 21st day of November, 2017. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Memorandum Opinion and Order - Page 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?