Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., No. CIV. A. 95-4169.
| Decision Date | 23 May 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV. A. 95-4169. |
| Citation | 111 F.Supp.2d 783 |
| Parties | Noor Begum KARIM, et al. v. FINCH SHIPPING COMPANY, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Paul C. Miniclier, Law Office of Paul C. Miniclier, New Orleans, LA, Priscilla M. Schwartz, Metairie, LA, for plaintiffs.
James A. Cobb, Jr., Randolph J. Waits, John F. Emmett, Emmett, Cobb, Waits, Kessenich & O'Neil, New Orleans, LA, for defendant Finch Shipping Co., Ltd.
David James Motter, Capella Law Firm, Metairie, LA, for movant Mac Rahman.
Andrew Struben, deKlerk, Joseph Dwight Lablanc, III, Frilot, Patridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC, New Orleans, LA, for Alpina Ship Management APS.
Thomas H. Kingsmill, III, Alanson Trigg Chenault, Rice, Fowler, Kingsmill, Vance Flint & Rodriguez, New Orleans, LA, Woody Falgoust, Thibodaux, LA, for
third-party defendant Barwil Agencies (N.A.) Ltd.
Thomas M. Richard, Jamie M. Bankston, Chopin, Wagar, Cole, Richard, Reboul & Kutcher, LLP, Mandeville, LA, for Third-party defendant BPE, Inc.
Before the Court are two motions by plaintiff Fazal Karim for new trial and/or reconsideration and/or amendment of judgment regarding: 1) the Court's April 14, 2000 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Judgment, and 2) the Court's May 2, 2000 minute entry permitting defendant Finch Shipping Co. to reduce its ad interim stipulation. For the following reasons, plaintiffs motions for new trial and/or reconsideration and/or amendment of judgments are DENIED.
On April 14, 2000, this Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the above captioned matter and rendered a Judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for past and future wages, past and future medical expenses, general damages, litigation costs including attorneys fees, and prejudgment interest. On April 28, 2000, the plaintiff filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration or, in the alternative, amendment of judgment pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On May 2, 2000, this Court granted the defendant's motion to reduce its ad interim stipulation. The plaintiff filed an additional motion for new trial and/or reconsideration and amendment of judgment on May 9, 2000 challenging the Court's order reducing the defendant's ad interim stipulation.
A district court has considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant a motion under Rule 59. See Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. The Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993). Rule 59 motions have been granted when the movant shows:
(1) that the judgment is based upon a manifest error of fact or law;
(2) the existence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence;
(3) manifest injustice would otherwise result; or
(4) in intervening change in controlling law occurred.
Id. The need for justice generally favors a Rule 59 motion only when the moving party demonstrates a mistake of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable. See Stephens v. Witco Corp., 1998 WL 426214, at *1 (E.D.La. July 24, 1998). Rule 59 should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings. See Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990); Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, No. 98-2605, 1999 WL 777720, at *1 (E.D.La. Sept.29, 1999). A motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 is an extraordinary remedy that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Karim v. Finch Shipping Co.
...fees. See Karim I, 94 F. Supp. 2d at 746. The district court denied Karim's post-trial motions, seeKarim v. Finch Shipping Co. ("Karim II"), 111 F. Supp. 2d 783, 784-85 (E.D. La. 2000), and Karim timely appealed. Finch also timely III. PROPRIETY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUDGMENT As both Kari......
-
Collins v. Benton
...Allied Bank, 996 F.2d at 115). [78] Id. at 4. [79] Id. at 4-5. [80] Id. at 5. [81] Id. at 5-6 (citing Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., 111 F.Supp.2d 783, 784 (E.D. La. 2000) (Fallon, J.)). [82] Id. at 6. [83] Id. (quoting Karim, 111 F.Supp.2d at 784) (emphasis omitted). [84] Id. [85] Id. (quoti......
-
Luther v. John W. Stone Oil Distrib., L.L.C.
...have been brought with the earlier motion. See Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990); Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., 111 F.Supp.2d 783, 784 (E.D .La.2000); Clancy v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 101 F.Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D.La.2000). See also, Clay v. Daichi Shipping, 2000 W......
-
Castro v. Tanner
...have been brought with the earlier motion. See Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990); Karim v. Finch Shipping Co., 111 F. Supp.2d 783, 784 (E.D. La. 2000); Clancy v. Employers Health Ins. Co., 101 F. Supp.2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000). Instead, Rule 59(e) "serve[s] the n......