Taylor et al v. TESCO Corporation (US)

Filing 340

ORDER denying 333 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified.(kcarr, 4)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
KEITH TAYLOR and BARBARA
TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR TWO MINOR
CHILDREN, DAVID A. TAYLOR and
DARYEL TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TESCO CORPORATION (US), TESCO
CORPORATION, PRIDE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., and
MEXICO DRILLING LIMITED, LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-11-00517

ORDER
Pending is Pride International, Inc.’s and Mexico Drilling
Limited, LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 333).
Pride International, Inc. and Mexico Drilling Limited, LLC (“the
Pride Defendants”) previously moved for summary judgment,1 which
motion the Court denied, finding that “the Pride Defendants have
not

established

as

a

matter

of

law

that

Tesco

(US)

predecessor was not the seller of the top drive unit.”2

or

its

Although

the present motion is styled as a motion for summary judgment, it
is in substance a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s denial
of

the

Pride

Defendants’

previous

1

Document No. 307.

2

Document No. 332 at 4.

motion

based

on

the

same

arguments,

with

additional

references

to

Texas

statutes

not

previously cited, but which were in effect at the time of the
previous filing.3
An interlocutory order is subject to revision at the Court’s
discretion.

See

FED. R. CIV . P.

54(b) (“any order

or other

decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the
claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims or
parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all the claims . . . .”) (emphasis added).
This discretion “is exercised sparingly in order to forestall the
perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and
delays.”

Dyson, Inc. v. Oreck Corp., 647 F. Supp. 2d 631, 643

(E.D. La. 2009) (Vance, J.). “A motion for reconsideration may not
be used to rehash rejected arguments or introduce new arguments.”
LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405, 412 n.13 (5th Cir. 2005); see also
Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co. v. De La Luz Garcia, 501 F.3d 436, 442 (5th
Cir. 2007) (“[G]enerally speaking, we will not consider an issue
raised for

the

first

(citations omitted)).

time

in

a Motion

for

Reconsideration.”

The Pride Defendants’ second motion for

summary judgment reiterates arguments previously made and makes new
arguments that could and should have been raised in the first

3

This second “Motion for Summary Judgment” was filed more
than six months after the Court-ordered deadline for dispositive/
non-dispositive motions. See Document No. 248. For that reason
alone it is subject to being denied as not having been timely
filed.
2

motion.

They have raised no argument that merits reconsideration

of their previous motion.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Pride International, Inc.’s and Mexico Drilling,
LLC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 333) is DENIED.
The Clerk shall notify all parties and provide them with a
signed copy of this Order.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 11th day of September, 2013.

____________________________________
EWING WERLEIN, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3