Opinion
Civ. No. 00-1766, SECTION "N".
August 29, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is plaintiff Audrey Hannum's Motion for New Trial. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
New Orleans Tree Service, Inc. ("N.O. Tree") and Economy Tree Service, Inc. ("Economy") are tree trimming and removal companies owned by Gerard D. Rodrigues ("Rodrigues"). Both companies share equipment and employees. Plaintiff Audrey Hannum ("Hannum") worked as Rodrigues' secretary at both of these companies until her termination in May of 1999.
On May 26, 2000, Hannum filed suit in state court against N.O. Tree, Economy and Rodrigues, alleging violations of the Louisiana Employment Discrimination Law ("LEDL") and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"). This Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment because Hannum's LEDL and Title VII claims had both prescribed. Hannum now moves for a new trial, stating that the Court dismissed her LEDL claim in error.
LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:301 et seq. (West 1998).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Because Hannum's claims were dismissed as a result of a dispositive motion, the Court shall treat her motion for a new trial as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. See Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that Rule 59(e) allows a losing party to "seek the trial court's reconsideration of its order granting summary judgment if served within 10 days of the rendition of judgment.").
A district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion under Rule 59(e). See Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993). Courts typically consider four factors in exercising their discretion: (1) whether the judgment was based upon a manifest error of fact or law; (2) whether the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) whether amendment is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; and (4) whether an intervening change in controlling law has occurred. See Franco v. Maraldo, 2000 WL 288378, at *2 (E.D. La. March 16, 2000); Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish Sch. Bd., 1999 WL 777720, at *2 (E.D. La. Sept. 29, 1999); Fields v. Pool Offshore, Inc., 1998 WL 43217, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 3, 1998). In addition, Courts must attempt to strike the proper balance between the competing imperatives of finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts. See Edward H. Bohlin, 6 F.3d at 355. In general, "reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly . . .," Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1104, 119 S.Ct. 869, 142 L.Ed.2d 771 (1999) (quoting 11 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1, at 124 (2d ed. 1995)), since "courts and litigants cannot be repeatedly called upon to backtrack through the paths of litigation which are often laced with close questions." Sussman v. Salem. Saxon Nielsen, 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994).
Hannum alleges that the Court erroneously found her LEDL claim had prescribed. A cause of action under the LEDL is subject to a one year prescriptive period, running from the date of termination. See LA. REV. STAT. § 23:303 (West 1998); Brunett v. Dep't of Wildlife and Fisheries, 685 So.2d 618, 621 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/96). In her opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion, Hannum claims she was fired on May 27, 1999, and that her May 26, 2000 lawsuit was timely. However, because an official report from the Louisiana Department of Labor indicated that Hannum filed for unemployment compensation on May 23, 1999, the Court held that no reasonable factfinder could find that she was terminated on May 27, 1999. See Quarterly Statement of Benefit Charges.
In her instant motion, Hannum submits a computer printout from the "Louisiana Eligibility Review System" and claims that "the Louisiana Department of Labor by its own records establishes that the plaintiff was terminated on May 27, 1999." She also submits a check from N.O. Tree Service for $76.00. However, Hannum does not explain why these documents support her position or why they were not included in her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Since these materials were available to Hannum when she opposed defendants' summary judgment motion and since she has not explained why she did not include these materials at that time, these documents will not be considered in connection with the instant motion. See Waltman v. International Paper Company, 875 F.2d 468, 474 (5th Cir. 1989).
CONCLUSION
In her motion for to alter or amend judgment, plaintiff Audrey Hannum merely revisits the arguments she unsucessfully raised in opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Since she has cited no element of fact or law that has not already been brought before the Court, plaintiff Audrey Hannum's motion is DENIED.