Opinion
Civil Action No. 04-379 Section "L" (2).
August 24, 2004
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the Motion of Plaintiff for Rehearing and reconsideration of this Court's Order and Reasons granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff requested that the matter be heard with oral argument. The Plaintiff's request for oral argument is hereby DENIED. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's Motion is likewise DENIED.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Court detailed the factual and procedural history of this case in its prior Order and Reasons dated July 22, 2004. (Rec. Doc. No. 13). For purposes of this motion, the Court shall briefly summarize the history of the case.
The case arises from a dispute concerning the interpretation of an Oil, Gas, and Mineral Lease (the "Lease") entered into by the parties on December 31, 2002. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was obligated to make rental payments under the terms of the Lease. The Defendant argued that it was under no obligation to make rental payments or to take any other action. Rather, pursuant to the "unless" clause, the Lease provided the Defendant with the option of maintaining its rights under the Lease by either conducting drilling operations or making delay rental payments. According to the Defendant, failure to undertake either course of action would result in termination of the Lease by its clear terms.
The matter came before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. After carefully considering the arguments propounded by counsel in their respective briefs and all of the evidence submitted to the Court, the Court found that the Defendant was under no obligation to make rental payments. Accordingly, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff's claims.
The Plaintiff now asks this Court to reconsider its prior ruling. The Plaintiff's Motion was filed within ten (10) days of the entry of Judgment, and is accordingly treated as a motion to alter or amend under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Giles v. General Electric Co., 245 F.3d 474, 494 (5th Cir. 2001). To obtain relief under Rule 59(e), the movant must (1) show that its motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact; (2) present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) show that its motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) show that its motion is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. Robinett v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 02-842, 2003 WL 292306, at * 1 (E.D.La. Feb. 10, 2003); Jackson v. F.I.E. Corp., No. 95-2389, 2004 WL 223982, at * 1 (E.D.La. Jan. 30, 2004).
Plaintiff presents the Court with no new evidence or authority in support of its motion for reconsideration. Rather, Plaintiff claims that the Court must determine if drilling operations were conducted before determining whether the Defendant owes rental payments. However, as the Court previously noted, the Lease is clear and unambiguous and specifically contemplated that the lessee had the option at the expiration of the first year to maintain the Lease by either conducting drilling obligations or paying delay rentals. Thus, had Defendant commenced drilling operations, rentals would not be owed. Nothing in the language of the Lease indicates that the lessee was obligated under any scenario to pay delay rentals.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly the Court DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing.