Thomas v. Wallace, Rush, Schmidt, Inc.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

DE’MARCUS THOMAS CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT, INC. NO.: 16-572-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER

Before the Court in this wage-and-hour dispute is Plaintiff DeMarcus

Thomas's Motion for New Trial, Alteration or Amendment of Judgment, and

Reconsideration (Doc. 136). Because no trial has occurred, and no judgment has

been entered, the Motion (Doe. 136) is DENIED insofar as it seeks a “new trial” or

amendment or alteration of a non-existent judgment. Moving beyond the mislabeling,

the Court construes the Motion (Doc. 136) as one for reconsideration of the Court's

Ruling and Order (Doc. 182) eranting in part and denying in part Defendants’

Motions for Partial Dismissal (Docs. 112 & 115) and granting in full Defendants’

Motions to Strike (Docs. 113 & 114). The Court may revise an interlocutory order at any time for any reason before

it enters final judgment. United States v. Renda, 709 F.8d 472, 479 (6th Cir. 2013).

The Court’s Ruling and Order (Doc. 182) did not adjudicate all claims or decide the

rights and liabilities of all parties and is therefore interlocutory. See FED R. Civ. 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’l Semiconductor Corp., 881 F. Supp. 2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012). To support relief under that standard, Thomas 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 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). Thomas fails to show that the Court’s Ruling and Order (Doc. 132) was “manifestly erroneous,” and he offers no newly discovered evidence justifying reconsideration. Schiller, 342 F.3d at 567. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff DeMarcus Thomas’s Motion for New Trial, Alteration or Amendment of Judgment, and Reconsideration (Doc. 136) is DENIED.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this =... of August, 2019. A Q a JUDGE BRIAN A SON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA