Prewitt, Sr. v. Continental Automotive

Filing 60

ORDER DENYING 58 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David A. Ezra. (rf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
LARRY W. PREWITT, SR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. SA: 12-CV-582-DAE

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Larry W. Prewitt filed suit against Defendant Continental
Automotive alleging violations of the Texas Labor Code, Title VII, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). On February 21, 2014, the Court
granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in part. (Dkt. # 47.) On
August 28, 2014, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on
Plaintiff’s remaining claims. (Dkt. # 54.) On September 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
Motion for a New Trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. However,
because Plaintiff never had a trial, a motion for a new trial is an inappropriate
vehicle to challenge this Court’s ruling. Therefore, because Plaintiff is entitled to
leeway due to his pro se status, the Court construes his filing as a motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s final grant of Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 54).

1

The Court has fully explored the relevant facts in its previous orders
and will not reiterate them here.
LEGAL STANDARD
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide
for a “motion for reconsideration,” such a motion is usually construed as either a
Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment or a Rule 60(b) motion for relief
from a final judgment or order. Shepherd v. Int’l Paper Co., 372 F.3d 326, 328 n.1
(5th Cir. 2004).
To succeed on a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule
59(e), a party “must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must
present newly discovered evidence.” Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater
Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The motion “cannot be used to raise arguments which could and should have been
made before the judgment issues.” Id.
A motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from a final judgment or
order must be filed “within a reasonable period of time,” and, when the motion is
based on certain grounds, “no more than a year after the entry of judgment.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b). Rule 60(b) sets out six grounds for granting relief from a final
judgment:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been
2

discovered in time to move for a new trial under rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the
judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason
justifying relief from operation of the judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) is granted only when
“extraordinary circumstances” not covered by the five enumerated grounds are
present. Batts v. Tow-Motor Forklift Co., 66 F.3d 743, 747 (5th Cir. 1995). “The
district court enjoys considerable discretion when determining whether the movant
has satisfied any of these Rule 60(b) standards.” Teal v. Eagle Fleet, Inc., 933 F.2d
341, 347 (5th Cir. 1991).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff here has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s orders
granting summary judgment to Defendant. (Dkt. # 58.) In support, Plaintiff has
attached emails detailing communications regarding his absences from work,
claiming these are new evidence that would alter this Court’s previous judgments.
(Id.)
After reviewing Plaintiff’s proffered evidence, the Court finds no
grounds to disturb its previous judgment. Plaintiff’s evidence consists merely of a
re-urging of his previous evidence and argument. Resubmission of previously
considered claims and evidence is not the purpose of motions under Rule 59(e) or
3

Rule 60. The Court has already considered Plaintiff’s claims and rejected them.
Plaintiff has not met the burden required to justify an amendment to this Court’s
previous orders.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
for Reconsideration. (Dkt. # 58.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: San Antonio, Texas, November 25, 2014.

_____________________________________
David Alan Ezra
Senior United States Distict Judge

4