ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, District Judge.

In advance of a pretrial conference in the above-captioned case, the parties submitted a joint pretrial order.1 Therein, Defendants maintained that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant Nabors Industries, Ltd. ("NIL"), despite a previous order2 by the judge previously assigned to this case, Judge Lance M. Africk, in which Judge Africk denied Defendants' previous Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.3 During the pretrial conference, this Court indicated that it would construe Defendants' objection as a motion to reconsider Judge Africk's order and that it would allow Plaintiffs to file a brief memorandum in opposition,4 which Plaintiffs since filed.5 For the following reasons, the Court will not reconsider Judge Africk's order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; however, the Court will consider any properly urged motion by Defendants if it appears that Plaintiffs have not proved the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence at the conclusion of trial.

In Defendants' Description of Jurisdiction contained within the proposed pretrial order, the sole argument advanced regarding why this Court lacks jurisdiction over NIL is that Plaintiffs' claims against NIL are "based on nothing more than NIL's role as parent company to [another defendant]."6 This argument was previously advanced in Defendants' original Motion to Dismiss and was rejected by Judge Africk, who found:

Accordingly, Defendants have not now presented any new arguments regarding personal jurisdiction, nor have they presented any arguments regarding any of the other factors that courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana typically consider when contemplating reconsideration. Courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana have generally considered the following factors: (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.8

Motions for reconsideration "`are not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments. . . .'"9 Instead, such motions "serve the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence."10 "It is well settled that motions for reconsideration should not be used . . . to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party."11 Reconsideration is not to be lightly granted, as "[r]econsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly"12 and the motion must "clearly establish" that reconsideration is warranted.13 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.14

Here, Defendants' have advanced no new arguments regarding why this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over NIL that were not previously presented to, and considered by, Judge Africk. Further, this Court, having reviewed the prior order of Judge Africk, finds that Judge Africk correctly stated and interpreted the law regarding personal jurisdiction. In reviewing the appropriate standard of law governing the motion to dismiss that was pending before him, Judge Africk stated, "Where, as here, the Court rules without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case that the Court has jurisdiction over a defendant."15 Judge Africk then found that, taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the burden was satisfied, and this Court sees no manifest error in Judge Africk's conclusion. However, Judge Africk noted in a footnote:

This, too, was a correct statement of the law, and sustaining this burden will require Plaintiffs to present evidence to demonstrate that the Court has personal jurisdiction over NIL, rather than requiring only that Plaintiffs allege facts that would support jurisdiction.

Accordingly, this Court finds that Defendants have not satisfied the standard for reconsideration of Judge Africk's order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. This is because Defendants have done nothing more than rehash arguments previously presented and because the Court does not find Judge Africk's decision to be manifestly erroneous such that it was inappropriate for the Court to find personal jurisdiction over NIL at that juncture. However, the Court notes that, as Judge Africk correctly noted, the prima facie burden of Plaintiffs to demonstrate personal jurisdiction over NIL is not the ultimate burden that must be satisfied. Instead, it must ultimately be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it is proper to assert personal jurisdiction over NIL.17 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Court will not grant reconsideration of Judge Africk's order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction18 but that the Court will consider any properly urged motion by Defendants if it appears that Plaintiffs have not proved the jurisdictional facts by a preponderance of the evidence at the conclusion of trial.

NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA.