Durham v. Dassault Falcon Jet Corp.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: April 3, 2024
• Docket: 6:23-cv-06050
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

RANDALL D. DURHAM PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:23-cv-06050

DASSAULT FALCON JET CORP. DEFENDANT

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Randall D. Durham’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 17. Defendant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. responded. ECF No. 18. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. On March 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action alleging wrongful termination.1 ECF No. 3. 0F On February 6, 2024, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 3) with prejudice finding that his Complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. ECF No. 16. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision “in light of the fact that without a trial he was unable to offer the full extent of why his employment was terminated.” ECF No. 17, p. 1. After a federal court enters a judgment, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a party 28 days to file a motion to amend the judgment. “Motions under Rule 59(e) serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment.” Yeransian v. B. Riley FBR, Inc., 984 F.3d 633, 636 (8th Cir. 2021). “Rule 59(e) is not to be used to reassert arguments, theories,

1 Plaintiff filed this action in Garland County Circuit Court on March 14, 2023. On April 18, 2023, Defendant removed the matter to this Court citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). and evidence that were previously rejected by the court.” Crystal Clear Computer Sols., LLC v. City of Helena-W. Helena, No. 2:20-CV-00017-LPR, 2022 WL 179049, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 19, 2022) (internal quotations omitted). The newly asserted unsworn reasons why Plaintiff was “wrongfully terminated” could have been raised prior to the Court’s previous order dismissing

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Further, counsel for Plaintiff seems to have missed that the Court additionally dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint because it was time-barred. Thus, the Court finds that the instant motion should be denied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 17) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 3rd day of April, 2024.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge