Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-3159, SECTION "C" (1)
January 25, 2001
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is the Motion of Defendant Societe Generale de Surveillance, S.A. ("SGSSA") Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Order granting limited discovery as to jurisdictional issues pertinent to SGA-SA's 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.
In light of the Court's conclusion that the Motion is not meritorious, an opposition brief is not necessary.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "motion for reconsideration" in those exact terms. See Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). However, the Fifth Circuit has held that a motion to reconsider a dispositive pre-trial motion is analogous to a motion to "alter or amend the judgment" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for "relief from judgment" under Rule 60(b). See id. A motion for reconsideration is considered a Rule 59(e) motion if it is served within ten (10) days of the court's ruling and a Rule 60(b) motion if it is served more than ten (10) days after the court's ruling. See id. Defendant's motion in this case was filed on January 23, 2001, within the ten-day window. Therefore, Rule 59(e) governs Defendant's motion for reconsideration.
In Washington v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 180 F.R.D. 309 (E.D. La. 1998), rev'd and vacated on other grounds, 199 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2000), this Court ruled that alteration or amendment of a previous ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is proper only upon movant's showing of: "(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and/or (3) the need to correct a clear and manifest error of fact or law." 180 F.R.D. at 311.
As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that a motion for reconsideration is not appropriate for a ruling of this nature, as it is not dispositive and cannot be classified as a "judgment." Assuming arguendo that such a motion is appropriate, the Court finds that Defendant SGS-SA has demonstrated neither that there has been a change of law nor that new evidence has suddenly become available. The Court is also not persuaded that it has made a "clear and manifest error of fact or law" by allowing limited discovery for the purposes of resolving the matter of this Court's ability to exercise personal jurisdiction over SGS-SA. The Court is aware that additional depositions are scheduled in this matter over the coming weeks. The Court admonishes all parties that if it becomes apparent through discovery that personal jurisdiction does not exist over SGS-SA, counsel shall promptly dismiss this party from the lawsuit. If a good faith dispute remains over the personal jurisdiction question, the Court will consider SGS-SA's 12(b)(2) motion at the appropriate time, as reflected in the prior Minute Entry.