# Bradford v. Ochsner Clinic Foundation

> District Court, E.D. Louisiana · December 7, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188666

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** December 7, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188666

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LATARSHA L. BRADFORD * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 22-3892

OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION * SECTION “E” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before me is Plaintiff Latarsha Bradford’s Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 9), which was scheduled for submission on December 7, 2022. No Opposition Memorandum
has been filed and no party requested oral argument in accordance with Local Rule 78.1. The
Court agrees that oral argument is unnecessary and will address the motion on the papers.
Having considered the record, the submissions and arguments of counsel, and the
applicable law, Plaintiff Latarsha Bradford’s Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration is
DENIED for the reasons stated herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination suit against Defendant Ochsner Clinic
Foundation on October 14, 2022, and filed an Amended Complaint two weeks later, on October
28, 2022. ECF Nos. 1, 4. Ochsner filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Plead, seeking a 21-
day extension, until December 13, 2022, to file responsive pleadings to Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint. ECF No. 6. Although Plaintiff did not file an objection in the record before Ochsner’s
motion, Plaintiff filed an Opposition Memorandum. ECF No. 7. After considering both Ochsner’s
motion and Plaintiff’s Opposition, this Court granted the extension on November 15, 2022. ECF
No. 8.
On the same day as this Court’s Order, Plaintiff filed this Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration. ECF No. 9. The “Supplemental Motion” reads:
Pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Latarsha L.
Bradford files this supplement to Plaintiff’s OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD filed on November 14th,
2022, by adding a request that this Court also reconsider Plaintiff’s second Notice
of Submission served upon Defendant’s counsel for the opposed motion field on
November 14, 2022 and Certificate of Service via USPS certified mail on
November 15, 2022 as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 5(b)(1).

Plaintiff prays that the SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
corrects any defect in the filing of the ORIGINAL PLEADING, NOTICE OF
SUBMISSION and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, and clarifies that service has
been made by USPS certified mail on November 15, 2022, while Plaintiff request
original motion to be considered on your HONORABLE’s earliest available
hearing date.

ECF No. 9.
II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide specifically for motions for
reconsideration.1 Under Rule 54(b), “[d]istrict courts have considerable discretion in deciding
whether to grant a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order. The exact standard applicable to
the granting of a motion under Rule 54(b) is not clear, though it is typically held to be less exacting
than would be a motion under Rule 59(e), which is in turn less exacting than the standards
enunciated in Rule 60(b).”2 “The general practice of [courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana]
has been to evaluate [Rule 54(b)] motions to reconsider under the same standards that govern Rule
59(e) motions to alter or amend a final judgment,” balancing the interests of justice with the need

1 Cressionnie v. Hample, 184 F. App'x 366, 369 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); Shepherd v. Int'l Paper Co., 372
F.3d 326, 328 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004).
2 Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp., 259 F. Supp. 2d 471, 475 (M.D. La. 2002) (citations
omitted); Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Accts. v. Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002) (A Rule 59(e)
motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment,” and courts have considerable discretion in deciding whether
to grant such a motion).
for finality.3 The four relevant factors in deciding a motion to reconsider under the Rule 59(e) are:
(1) the motion is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact upon which the judgment is
based; (2) the movant presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) the
motion is necessary in order to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) the motion is justified by an
intervening change in controlling law.4

Motions to reconsider, whether analyzed under Rule 54(b), Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b),
“serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence.”5 They are not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal
theories, or arguments.6 Nor should a motion for reconsideration be used to raise arguments that
could have and should have been made before entry of an order or to re-urge matters that have
already been advanced by a party.7 When there exists no independent reason for reconsideration
other than mere disagreement with a prior order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and
resources and should not be granted.8
In this case, it is unclear whether Plaintiff simply seeks to supplement her earlier opposition

to include service information or whether she asks that the Court reconsider its decision granting
Ochsner the extension of time to answer. If the former, Plaintiff’s opposition was accepted for
filing, docketed, and considered by the Court. Thus, there is no need to supplement it with service
information. If the latter, Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for reconsideration. As
previously explained, Plaintiff’s Opposition failed to identify any legitimate justification for denial

3 See, e.g., Castrillo v. Am. Home Mortg. Serv'g, Inc., No. 09-4369, 2010 WL 1424398, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2010)
(citations omitted); Rosemond v. AIG Ins., No. 08-1145, 2009 WL 1211020, at *2 (E.D. La. May 4, 2009).
4 Flynn v. Terrebonne Par. Sch. Bd., 348 F. Supp. 2d 769, 771 (E.D. La. 2004) (citations omitted).
5 Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
6 Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260,
1268 (7th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted)).
7 See Browning v. Navarro, 894 F.2d 99, 100 (5th Cir. 1990).
8 Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 475.
of Defendant’s requested 21-day extension. Given that Defendant has not obtained any prior
extensions and Plaintiffs original complaint was filed on October 14, 2022, followed by her
amended complaint on October 28, 2022, and Plaintiff did not identify any circumstances or time-
sensitive issues that would justify denial of the requested 21-day extension, the Court granted
Ochsner’s request to extend the responsive pleading deadline to December 13, 2022. See ECF No.
8. Plaintiff's Supplemental Motion fails to change that calculus.
Il. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that reconsideration of this Court’s prior Order is
justified. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Latarsha Bradford’s Supplemental Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 9) is DENIED.
Dates this _ 7th day of December, 2022.

oe Uielly CURRAULT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10188666. Public record. Not legal advice.