Guy v. LeBlanc

• Court: District Court, M.D. Louisiana
• Decided: February 12, 2020
• Docket: 3:18-cv-00223
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA WILFRED GUY CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL, NO.: 18-00223-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 48). This Motion is opposed. See (Doc. 49). Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its January 23, 2020 Order (Doc. 47), which denied Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) as moot. This action commenced on March 6, 2018. On November 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 45), which had the effect of superseding the original Complaint (Doc. 1) and rendering prior pending motions moot. See Griffin v.Am. Zurich Ins. Co., 697 F. App'x 798, 797 (5th Cir. 2017), as revised (June 8, 2017) (finding that an amended complaint rendered all earlier motions, including the plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment, moot); see also King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). The Court may revise an interlocutory order at any time and for any reason before it enters final judgment. United States v. Renda, 709 F.3d 472, 479 (5th Cir. 2013). The Court’s Order (Doc. 47} denying Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment did not adjudicate all claims or decide the rights and liabilities of all parties

and is therefore interlocutory.! See FED R. Criv. P. 54(b). Because requests to reconsider interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b) require courts to consider many of the policies behind Rule 59(e) requests to alter or amend an order or judgment, courts apply the Rule 59(e) standard to Rule 54(b) motions to reconsider. See, e.g., eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat’ 1 Semiconductor Corp., 881 F. Supp. 2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012). To support relief under that standard, Plaintiff must (a) “clearly establish” that the Court’ s ruling was “manifestly erroneous” or (b) offer newly-discovered evidence that justifies reconsideration. Schiller v. Physicians Res, Grp., Inc., 342 F.3d 568, 567 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff has failed to establish that the Court’s Ruling and Order (Doe. 47) was “manifestly erroneous,” and offers no newly discovered evidence justifying reconsideration. Regarding error, Plaintiffs sole argument is that the Court incorrectly denied Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 21) because it transposed two distinct policies, Directive No. 09.036 and No. 19.001. (Doc. 48-1, at p. 1). In its Order (Doc. 47), the Court found that Plaintiffs Motion (Doc. 21) requested relief which was absent in the original Complaint, and that the Amended Complaint did not cure that deficiency. (Doc. 47, at p. 3). The Court further noted that the Magistrate Judge denied a prior proposed version of the Amended Complaint that sought to add an allegation concerning Directive No. 09.036. Id. at 2. While the Court acknowledges that the original Complaint mentioned Directive No. 09.036 in one instance, this

1 In fact, the Court specified that its denial was without prejudice to Plaintiffs right to file new motions concerning material from the Amended Complaint, such as a new Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court again reminds Plaintiff that he is free to file motions that do not contain requests for relief that lack a foundation in the Amended Complaint.

amounted to a passing reference and was absent from the relief requested. (Doc. 1, at p. 16). Plaintiffs contention that the Magistrate Judge denied leave to add claims concerning Directive 19.001 as opposed to Directive No. 09.036 is not supported by the record. See (Doc. 37). The Court stands by its conclusion that it would be inappropriate to rule on a motion that was superseded by the filing of an Amended Complaint and requested relief that lacked a basis in either complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 48) is DENIED, and the Court’s Order (Doc. 47) is AFFIRMED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this Hay of February, 2020.

, Boa. ba UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA