Velasquez et al v. WCA Management Company, L.P.

Filing 114

OPINION AND ORDER denying 78 Motion for Reconsideration.(Signed by Judge Melinda Harmon) Parties notified.(rhawkins)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JOSE VELASQUEZ, et al,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
WCA MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

April 20, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-02329

OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above-referenced cause is Defendant WCA Management
Company’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Order Denying Arbitration (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). Doc. 78. Having considered the motion, responses, record, and relevant legal
authorities, the Court denies Defendant’s motion.
In an Opinion and Order dated August 23, 2016, this Court denied Defendant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment and Alternative Motion to Dismiss Claims of Certain Opt-Ins. Doc. 64.
In that motion, Defendant argued for the dismissal of the claims of certain opt-in plaintiffs
pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Id. at 10–12. Defendant
contended that the express terms of the CBA—entered into two days before this case was filed—
required a number of plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. Id. Relying on the record, the Court
concluded that evidence existed indicating that the CBA was never ratified and, therefore, denied
Defendant’s motion. Doc. 76 at 17–21. Defendant now urges this Court to reconsider that
decision. See Doc. 78.
A motion for reconsideration “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” In re
Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). “[S]uch a motion is not the proper
vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or
1/2

raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. Hydro Chem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.
2004) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Rather, it merely
serves to allow “a party ‘to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.’” Waltman v. Int’l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (quoting Keene Corp.
v. Int’l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 735 F.2d 1367 (7th Cir.
1984)). A motion for reconsideration may also be used to bring an intervening change in the
controlling law to the court’s attention. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567–
68 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002)).
Nevertheless, “[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Templet, 367 F. 3d at 479 (citing Clancy v. Employers Health Ins.
Co., 101 F. Supp. 2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)).
In its Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant simply restates the same arguments that it
raised in its earlier motion. For the reasons stated in its August 23 Opinion and Order, this Court
again concludes that lingering questions regarding the validity of the CBA preclude dismissal of
certain opt-in plaintiffs’ claims. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 20th day of April, 2017.
___________________________________
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2/2