School Board of Parish of St. Charles v. Shell Oil Co.

Full title: SCHOOL BOARD OF THE PARISH OF ST. CHARLES v. SHELL OIL COMPANY

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Jun 2, 2008

CIVIL ACTION NO: 04-2511 SECTION: "J" (1) (E.D. La. Jun. 2, 2008)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO: 04-2511 SECTION: "J" (1).

June 2, 2008

ORDER

CARL BARBIER, District Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or Alternatively for a New Trial. (Rec. Doc. 233). For the reasons below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

"A Rule 59(e) motion `calls into question the correctness of a judgment.' [The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals] has held that such a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment. Rather, Rule 59(e) `serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.' Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly."

Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). This Court may properly decline to consider new arguments or new evidence on reconsideration where those arguments were available to the movant prior to the order. Id.

Plaintiff's motion merely restates many of the arguments Plaintiff made at trial. A motion for a New Trial is not the place to relitigate old issues. The mere fact Plaintiff disagrees with this Court's ruling is not grounds for a Motion for a New Trial. See United States v. Moyo, No. 07-7229, 2008 WL 695249 (E.D. La. Mar. 12, 2008); Henson v. Odyssea Vessels, Inc., No. 07-613, 2008 WL 89513 (E.D. La. Jan. 7, 2008); F.D.I.C. v. Cage, 810 F. Supp. 745, 747 (S.D. Miss. 1993). Accordingly,

Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment or Alternatively for a New Trial (Rec. Doc. 233) is DENIED.