Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Seibert Enterprises, LLC
ORDER entered DENYING 36 MOTION for Reconsideration of 34 Memorandum and Opinion. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE CO., §
SEIBERT ENTERPRISES, LLC,
September 05, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-3490
The plaintiff, Starr Surplus Lines Insurance, filed a motion for reconsideration of this court’s
order denying its summary judgment motion and granting the summary judgment motion filed by
the defendant, Seibert Enterprises. (Docket Entry No. 36).
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. See St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Fair Grounds Corp., 123 F.3d 336, 339 (5th Cir.
1997) (“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a general motion for
reconsideration.”). A court retains the power to revise an interlocutory order before entering
judgment adjudicating the parties’ claims, rights, and liabilities. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b). A Rule 59(e)
motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d
473, 478–79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
A motion that asks the court to change an order or judgment is generally considered a motion to alter
or amend under Rule 59(e). eTool Development, Inc. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 881 F.Supp.2d
745, 748–49 (E.D. Tex. 2012).
A Rule 59(e) motion “‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present newly discovered evidence’ and ‘cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should,
have been made before the judgment issued.’” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863–64
(5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Changing
an order or judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy” that courts use sparingly.
Templet, 367 F.3d at 479; see also 11 WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
§ 2810.1 at 124 (2d ed. 1995). The Rule 59(e) standard “favors denial of motions to alter or amend
a judgment.” S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993). A
motion to reconsider may not be used to relitigate matters, raise arguments, or submit evidence that
could have been presented before the judgment or order was entered. 11 WRIGHT & MILLER
§ 2810.1 at 127–28 (footnotes omitted). “Relief . . . is also appropriate when there has been an
intervening change in the controlling law.” Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567
(5th Cir. 2003); accord Arceneaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 07-7701, 2008 WL 2067044,
at *1 (E.D. La. May 14, 2008) (“To obtain relief under Rule 59(e), the movant must (1) show that
its motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact, (2) present newly discovered or
previously unavailable evidence, (3) show that its motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice,
or (4) show that its motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law.”) (citation
Starr Surplus does not raise new arguments in its motion for reconsideration. Instead, Starr
Surplus reurges arguments that this court rejected in its memorandum and opinion ruling on the
cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons stated in this court’s prior opinion, Docket
Entry No. 34, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
SIGNED on September 5, 2017, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief 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?