LANCE M. AFRICK, District Judge.
Before the Court are three motions for summary judgment. Defendant, Max Welders, LLC ("Max Welders"), filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
Plaintiff, Joseph R. Wilcox ("Wilcox"), alleges that on June 5, 2012, he suffered serious injuries while performing welding services on a fixed platform located at South Timbalier Block 63 on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico.
Wilcox filed this lawsuit seeking relief under the Jones Act and the general maritime law or, alternatively, under the Longshore Harbor Worker's Compensation Act ("LHWCA").
Max Welders now seeks summary judgment with respect to Wilcox's claims under the Jones Act and the general maritime law.
Wilcox responds that he meets the test for Jones Act seaman status because he was permanently reassigned to be a member of the crew of the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE for this particular assignment.
Max Welders separately moved for summary judgment to dismiss the cross-claim filed jointly by Superior and Wild Well.
Superior and Wild Well oppose the motion for summary judgment and they have filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the identity issues.
Summary judgment is proper when, after reviewing the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits, the court determines there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 56. The party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment need not produce evidence negating the existence of material fact, but
Once the party seeking summary judgment carries its burden pursuant to Rule 56, the other party must come forward with specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The showing of a genuine issue is not satisfied by creating "`some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,' by `conclusory allegations,' `unsubstantiated assertions,' or by only a `scintilla' of evidence." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Instead, a genuine issue of material fact exists when the "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The party responding to the motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the pleadings, but must identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue. Id. The nonmoving party's evidence, however, "is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the nonmoving party's] favor." Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541, 552, 119 S.Ct. 1545, 143 L.Ed.2d 731 (1999).
The United States Supreme Court has defined the essential requirements for seaman status as twofold. First, "an employee's duties must `contribut[e] to the function of the vessel or to the accomplishment of its mission.'" Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368, 115 S.Ct. 2172, 132 L.Ed.2d 314 (1995) (quoting McDermott Int'l, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 355, 111 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991)). Second, "a seaman must have a connection to a vessel in navigation (or to an identifiable group of such vessels) that is substantial in terms of both its duration and its nature." Id. Qualifying as a seaman under the Jones Act hinges on an employee's status in relation to a vessel rather than on the nature or location of the injury. See id. at 358-64, 115 S.Ct. 2172. "Land-based maritime workers do not become seamen because they happen to be working on board a vessel when they are injured, and seamen do not lose Jones Act protection when the course of their service to a vessel takes them ashore." Id. at 361, 115 S.Ct. 2172.
The inquiry into seaman status is a mixed question of law and fact and, therefore, "it often will be inappropriate to take the question from the jury." Harbor Tug & Barge Co. v. Papai, 520 U.S. 548, 554, 117 S.Ct. 1535, 137 L.Ed.2d 800 (1997). Summary judgment is appropriate where "the facts and the law will reasonably support only one conclusion." Id. (citing Wilander, 498 U.S. at 356, 111 S.Ct. 807). However, "`[i]f reasonable persons, applying the proper legal standard, could differ as to whether the employee was a `member of a crew,' it is a question for the jury.'" Chandris, 515 U.S. at 369, 115 S.Ct. 2172 (quoting Wilander, 498 U.S. at 356, 111 S.Ct. 807).
Max Welders argues that Wilcox cannot show that his duties as a platform worker contributed to the function or mission of the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. Max Welders argues that the purpose of the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE was only to house workers and that Wilcox "merely slept, ate, relaxed,
The Fifth Circuit has recognized that performing "minor duties" on board a vessel that merely houses platform workers does not "transform [one's] position as a platform worker into that of a seaman." Hufnagel v. Omega Serv. Indus., Inc., 182 F.3d 340, 347 (5th Cir.1999); see also Brown v. Performance Energy Servs., LLC, No. 08-852, 2009 WL 152505, at *4 (E.D.La. Jan. 20, 2009) (Africk, J.); Falcon Operators, Inc. v. P.M.P. Wireline Servs., Inc., No. 97-825, 1997 WL 610825, at *3 (E.D.La. Sept. 30, 1997) (Clement, J.). However, it is generally recognized that "satisfying the first prong of the test is relatively easy: the claimant need only show that he `do[es] the ship's work.'" Becker v. Tidewater, Inc., 335 F.3d 376, 387-88 (5th Cir.2003) (quoting Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368, 115 S.Ct. 2172). An employee need not show that his duties "aid in navigation or contribute to the transportation of the vessel" to qualify as a seaman. Wilander, 498 U.S. at 355, 111 S.Ct. 807. Moreover, a worker's duties on a fixed platform may contribute to the mission of a vessel that functions as a workboat rather than merely as a space to house workers. See Wilander v. McDermott Int'l., Inc., 887 F.2d 88, 90 (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that sandblasting and painting a fixed platform contributed to the function of a vessel that "functioned as a paint boat") aff'd 498 U.S. 337, 111 S.Ct. 807, 112 L.Ed.2d 866 (1991); see also Johnson v. TETRA Applied Techs., L.L.C., No. 11-1992, 2012 WL 3253184, at *3 & n. 20 (E.D.La. Aug. 7, 2012) (Africk, J.) (noting that the function of liftboats assisting plug and abandon operations was "not limited to storing equipment and housing personnel"); Butcher v. Superior Offshore Int'l, LLC, No. 07-8136, 2008 WL 5110629, at *2 (E.D.La. Dec. 2, 2008) (Vance, J.) ("[I]f the MAGGIE is a `paint boat,' then plaintiff's duties — which consisted primarily of blasting and painting offshore platforms — clearly contributed to its mission.").
The Court finds that there are genuine issues of material fact with respect to whether Wilcox contributed to the function or mission of the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE. Although Max Welders argues that Wilcox merely slept and relaxed on the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE, the extent to which Wilcox actually worked on the vessel is reasonably in dispute. Wilcox testified that he made repairs on the vessel, changed out water lines on the vessel, patched up "cooling stuff" for the air conditioners, helped crew members on and off the vessel onto the crew boat, assisted with bags, helped with the man basket, assisted with the offloading of supplies, performed general vessel housekeeping such as cleaning decks, and assisted various vessel operations such as tying ropes.
The Supreme Court has provided the following explanation regarding the substantial connection requirement:
Papai, 520 U.S. at 555, 117 S.Ct. 1535 (quoting Chandris, 515 U.S. at 368, 115 S.Ct. 2172).
The Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit have held that an injured worker must show a connection to a vessel that is "substantial in terms of both duration (the temporal prong) and nature (the functional prong)."
Where, as here, "the employee's regularly assigned duties require him to divide his time between vessel and land (or platform), his status is to be determined in the context of his entire employment with his current employer." Lormand v. Superior Oil Co., 845 F.2d 536, 540 (5th Cir. 1987) (citing Barrett v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 781 F.2d 1067, 1075 (5th Cir.1986)). "[T]his rule applies unless the employee's permanent job assignment has changed during the course of employment by his present employer." Lormand, 845 F.2d at 540. "[A] worker who, over the course of his employment, has worked in the service of a vessel in navigation well under thirty percent of his time may still qualify for seaman status if he has been reassigned to a new position that meets this temporal requirement." Becker, 335 F.3d at 389. However, "[o]nly in this latter situation is the employee entitled to have the substantiality of his vessel-related work assessed on the basis of a time period other than his entire term of employment by that employer." Lormand, 845 F.2d at 540.
It is clear that Wilcox cannot demonstrate a substantial connection to a vessel or any identifiable group of vessels under common ownership or control when considering his entire employment with Max Welders. According to the declaration of Keith LeBlanc ("LeBlanc"), the operations manager for Max Welders, Wilcox has been employed as a welder with Max Welders since February 16, 2009.
Wilcox has come forward with no evidence demonstrating that at least thirty percent of his work was spent in the service of a vessel or an identifiable group of vessels under common ownership or control over the course of his entire employment with Max Welders. The Fifth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana have held under analogous circumstances and in numerous cases that itinerant or transitory workers do not qualify for seaman status when they lack the requisite temporal connection to a vessel or fleet of vessels under common ownership or control. See, e.g., St. Romaine v. Indus. Fabrication & Repair Serv., 203 F.3d 376, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2000); Hufnagel, 182 F.3d at 347-48; Langston v. Schlumberger Offshore Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d 1192 (5th Cir.1987); Ardleigh v. Schlumberger Ltd., 832 F.2d 933, 934 (5th Cir.1987).
Wilcox nevertheless argues that the substantiality of his vessel-related work should be assessed on the basis of the time he spent performing decommissioning work offshore for Wild Well because he was permanently reassigned to work on a vessel every time he performed welding services offshore.
335 F.3d at 389-90.
The Fifth Circuit has made clear that a plaintiff is entitled to have the substantiality of his vessel-related work assessed on the basis of a new work assignment only if he received "a new work assignment before his accident in which either his essential duties or his work location is permanently changed." Barrett, 781 F.2d at 1075-76. This exception cannot be established through testimony that a temporary offshore worker was merely given training in offshore work and safety, that he was treated as part of the crew, or that he was ordered to work a crew position. See Becker, 335 F.3d at 390-91. An otherwise land-based worker must show that his "essential duties" had "substantial[ly]" or "fundamentally" changed, not merely that he "serve[d] on a boat sporadically." Id. at 388-91.
Wilcox has not shown that his essential duties changed when he was assigned to perform welding services in connection with the Wild Well project. According to LeBlanc, this project was not a permanent change in Wilcox's employment, but merely another Max Welders job in which plaintiff's primary duties as a contract welder were to assist the platform fabrication and/or demolition work.
The Fifth Circuit has rejected claims of seaman status as a matter of law in numerous cases in which temporary offshore workers — including contract welders such as Wilcox — claimed that they were permanently reassigned for a discrete voyage in which their essential duties did not change. See, e.g., Becker, 335 F.3d at 390-93; Lormand, 845 F.2d at 541; Barrett, 781 F.2d at 1076; Longmire v. Sea Drilling Corp., 610 F.2d 1342 (5th Cir.1980); see also Ausama v. Tetra Applied Technologies, LP, No. 05-2513, 2006 WL 1968858 (E.D.La. June 1, 2006) (Lemelle, J.). The facts of this case are materially indistinguishable from those in which the Fifth Circuit previously held that a temporary offshore worker was not permanently reassigned to a vessel. Wilcox has failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether he was permanently reassigned to the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE.
In summary, Wilcox has not shown that he qualifies as a Jones Act seaman. Even
As previously stated, Superior and Wild Well alleged in their cross-claim that Max Welders owes them insurance and indemnity obligations pursuant to an April 2004 Master Service Agreement ("MSA"). Max Welders has moved for summary judgment with respect to the cross-claim on the ground that the MSA does not apply to the work performed in this case. Max Welders argues, alternatively, that the indemnity provisions are void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy under the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act ("LOAIA"), La. Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2780. Because the Court agrees with Max Welders that the insurance and indemnity obligations in the MSA would be unenforceable pursuant to the LOAIA, the Court need not consider whether the terms and conditions of the MSA encompassed this particular work order.
The Louisiana legislature enacted the LOAIA to correct "an inequity ... foisted on certain contractors ... by the defense or indemnity provisions .. . contained in some agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas, or water, or drilling for minerals...."
La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9:2780(C). The "operations" contemplated by the LOAIA include "but [are] not limited to ... plugging, or otherwise rendering services in or in connection with any well drilled for the purpose of producing ... or other structure intended for use in the exploration for or production of any mineral...." Id.; see also Howell v. Avante Servs., LLC, No. 12-293, 2013 WL 1681436, at *3-4 (E.D.La. Apr. 17, 2013) (Vance, J.).
"The Fifth Circuit has synthesized these provisions into a two-part test: `[I]f (but only if) the agreement (1) pertains to a well and (2) is related to exploration,
"The inquiry into whether an agreement pertains to a well is `a fact intensive case by case analysis.'" Teaver v. Seatrax of La., Inc., No. 10-1523, 2012 WL 5866042, at *4 (E.D.La. Nov. 19, 2012) (Barbier, J.) (quoting Verdine v. Ensco Offshore Co., 255 F.3d 246, 251-52 (5th Cir.2001)); see also Transcon., 953 F.2d at 994-95. The Fifth Circuit has provided a nonexclusive list of factors to consider when determining whether an agreement pertains to a well. See Transcon., 953 F.2d at 994-95. When, as here, the agreement does not concern transportation of oil or gas, some of the relevant factors include the following:
Howell, 2013 WL 1681436, at *5 (quoting Broussard v. Conoco, Inc., 959 F.2d 42, 45 (5th Cir.1992)).
In Howell v. Avante Services, LLC, No. 12-293, 2013 WL 1681436, at *4 (E.D.La. Apr. 17, 2013) (Vance, J.), another section of this Court held that an agreement "to cut and pull casings from ... wellbore," as part of a broader decommissioning plan, fell within "[a] straightforward reading of the plain language of the LOAIA" and the Fifth Circuit's framework for evaluating the coverage of the LOAIA. The court began its analysis by noting that the agreement fell within the plain language of the statute as it required the performance of an act that was "collateral to plugging the well." See id. (citing La.Rev.Stat. Ann § 9:2780(C)).
The court then analyzed the relevant Transcontinental factors and found support for its finding that the agreement pertained to a well. id. at *5. The court explained that the platform and casings were owned by an exploration and production company, the casings were part of the well production system, the purpose of the casings was to assist in gas and oil production, the casing pipe had a geographic nexus to the wells because the casing pipe was in the wellbore, and there was a functional nexus between the casings and the well because the casings were part of the wellbore. Id. The court similarly held that the agreement was related to the exploration, development, production or transportation of oil because "cutting and pulling the casing was at least collateral to the plugging process." Id. at *7. The court explained that "cutting and pulling the casings can [not] be logically severed from the overall plug and abandonment operation," otherwise "LOAIA would cease to apply at some arbitrary point in carrying out the plan. Neither the statute nor the Fifth Circuit's test anticipated such an odd result." Id. at *8.
The court's analysis in Howell is equally applicable to the facts of this case which are virtually indistinguishable. As stated by DeWolfe, the agreement in this case called upon Max Welders to provide welding services in connection with the removal of:
As in Howell, the agreement to provide welding services in connection with the decommissioning of oil and gas platforms and the removal of the "very large caissons" that housed the well conductors falls within "a straightforward reading of the plain language of the LOAIA" because it is an agreement to perform an act that is "collateral to plugging the well." See Howell, 2013 WL 1681436, at *4 (citing La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2780(C)). As in Howell, the platforms and caissons were owned by an exploration and production company, the platforms and caissons were part of the well production system, the purpose of the platforms and caissons was to assist in oil and gas production, the platforms and caissons clearly had a geographic nexus to the well, and there was a functional nexus between the platforms, caissons, and the well because they provided the physical structure that housed and protected the well conductor. See id. at *5. Additionally, the agreement was "related to exploration, development, production, or transportation of oil, gas, or water" because removing the platforms and caissons were "at least collateral to the plugging process." See id. at *7-8.
Superior and Wild Well nevertheless argue that the agreement to provide welding services in this case does not "pertain to a well" because "the decommissioning operation took place on a structure housing a well that had already been plugged and abandoned and was in the process of being fully decommissioned."
As the court noted in Howell, however, "[t]his argument ... is foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit's decision in Verdine." Id. at *5. In Verdine, a platform owner hired a contractor to refurbish a platform that was not participating in the exploration, production, or transportation of oil or gas. Verdine, F.3d at 254. The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument that the parties' agreement did not "pertain to a well," explaining,
Id. at 253. While the platform was decommissioned at the time of the contract performance, it was nevertheless "designated for use on particular wells" and "intended for use in the exploration of oil and gas production." Id. at 254. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that the LOAIA applied to the agreement and it invalidated the indemnity provision. Id.
In Howell, the court held that the decision in Verdine foreclosed the argument that a structure is no longer "intended" for use in the exploration and production of oil and gas if it is no longer involved in or capable of hydrocarbon production. See Howell, 2013 WL 1681436, at *5-6. The court explained that "the LOAIA covers agreements concerning `plugging' and acts `collateral' to plugging," and that such an interpretation would exclude activities which the LOAIA expressly covers. See id. at *6. Following Verdine, the court noted that it would "not interpret the requirement that an agreement pertain to a well to exclude agreements to which the Act was intended to apply." See id. As a result, the court explained that the phrase "intended for use in the exploration or production of any mineral `refers to the general purpose of the structure, not its use at the precise moment in time the work was performed.'" See id. The court concluded:
Id. at *8.
This Court finds the reasoning in Howell persuasive and it declines to adopt the narrow reading asserted by Superior and Wild Well. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Max Welders that even if the MSA applied in this case, the obligations to defend, indemnify, or comply with the additional named insured provisions are void and unenforceable under the LOAIA.
Superior and Wild Well argue, in the alternative, that they are entitled to indemnity pursuant to the September 9, 2010 Vessel Boarding, Utilization, and Hold Harmless Agreement ("VBA"). The VBA provides, in part, as follows:
It is clear that the plain language of this contract unambiguously provides indemnity in connection with vessels "owned, charted, and/or operated" by Superior-not vessels "owned, charted, and/or operated" by Wild Well. Although Superior previously owned the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE, the vessel was transferred to Wild Well in October 2011, months before this accident, when Superior's marine division was dissolved and sold to another entity.
Superior and Wild Well contend that the VBA was intended to be an addendum to the MSA providing indemnity in connection with vessels owned by Superior and its "Company Group," as that term is defined in the MSA. Under federal maritime law, however, "a court may not look beyond the written language of the document to determine the intent of the parties unless the disputed contract provision is ambiguous." Curtis Callais Welding, Inc. v. Stolt Comex Seaway Holdings, Inc., 129 Fed.Appx. 45, 54 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished) (quoting Corbitt v. Diamond M. Drilling Co., 654 F.2d 329, 332-33 (5th Cir.1981)).
As Max Welders notes, the VBA does not provide that it should be interpreted as an addendum to the MSA, make any reference to the MSA, or otherwise incorporate any defined terms in the MSA. It noticeably does not incorporate any definition of "Company Group," as it specifically defines "Owner" as Superior Energy Services, L.L.C. and "Contractor" as Max Welders. Moreover, the plain language of the MSA states that it "embodies the entire understanding of the parties hereto and there are no further or other agreements or understandings, written or oral, that governs the Work provided hereunder."
Superior and Wild Well concede that the plain language of the VBA unambiguously does not apply to vessels owned by Wild Well, but they contend that the terms of the VBA should be reformed to reflect the parties' alleged mutual intent.
Superior and Wild Well essentially argue that the VBA should be reformed to reflect a mutual intent to provide knock-for-knock indemnity in connection with vessels owned not just by Superior (i.e., "Owner"), but also in connection with any vessel owned by Superior's "Company Group," as that term is defined in the MSA. More specifically, however, Superior and Wild Well argue that the parties simply "forgot to amend the Vessel Boarding Agreement to change the name of the owner to be indemnified from Superior Energy Services, LLC to Wild Well" when ownership of the SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE was transferred to Wild Well.
In American Electric Power Co. v. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., 556 F.3d 282 (5th Cir.2009), the Fifth Circuit rejected a similar attempt to introduce parol evidence to show that the term "corporation," as used in an insurance policy, was intended to include coverage for not only the company's subsidiary corporations, but also for the company's subsidiary limited liability companies. The Fifth Circuit declined to consider extrinsic evidence showing that "the original parties had a broader-than-usual meaning in mind when they purposefully included the word." The Fifth Circuit also explained that considering the company's affidavits regarding the meaning of the term "corporation" would allow it to "make an end-run around the parol-evidence rule by framing it[] ... as a request for reformation." In this case, although Superior and Wild Well submitted affidavits in an attempt to argue that the VBA was intended to apply to vessels owned not by not only Superior, but also its "Company Group," the Court finds that, as in American Electric Power, this would essentially allow them to make an end-run around the parol evidence rule by arguing that they had a broader-than-usual meaning in mind when they defined the term "Owner" in the VBA as "Superior Energy Services, L.LC."
More to the point, however, is the fact that Superior and Wild Well have come forward with no evidence showing that the VBA did not reflect the parties' mutual intent at the time the agreement was reduced to writing. "A mutual mistake is a mistake shared by both parties to the instrument at the time of reducing their agreement to writing, and the mistake is mutual if the contract has been written in terms which violate the understanding of both parties." Shreveport Plaza, LLC v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., 196 Fed.Appx. 320, 322 (5th Cir.2006) (emphasis in original) (quoting Fireman's Fund
In this case, Superior and Wild Well claim that they simply "forgot" to amend the VBA after Superior transferred ownership of the Superior Performance to Wild Well. However, this clearly does not show that, at the time it was executed, the VBA failed to reflect the mutual intent of the parties. Moreover, the Superior Performance was owned by Superior and Wild Well at the time the VBA was executed, so they cannot show there was any mutual mistake in failing to include vessels owned by Superior's "Company Group" within the terms of the VBA. Rather, any error in either failing to include Superior's "Company Group" within the terms of the VBA, or in simply "forgetting" to amend the VBA, amounts to unilateral error on the part of Superior and Wild Well, which is not a sufficient basis to reform the VBA in this case.
Considering the foregoing,
Before the Court is a motion
The Court assumes familiarity with the general background of this case as set forth in the Court's August 28, 2013 order and reasons, which granted Max Welders' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiffs' claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law.
Plaintiffs now challenge the granting of summary judgment on the basis that the Court "failed to take into consideration [Wilcox's] relationship with his borrowing employer [Wild Well] and ignored the evidence regarding his reassignment."
A motion to alter or amend a judgment filed pursuant to 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." Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir. 1989). A district court has "considerable discretion in deciding whether to reopen a case in response to a motion for reconsideration" pursuant to Rule 59(e). Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air. Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). "The Court must strike the proper balance between the need for finality and the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts." Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir.1993).
Plaintiffs may not use a Rule 59 motion to merely revisit issues that were decided against them. See Templet v. HydroChem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir.2004) ("[S]uch 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.") (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990)); see also Arceneaux v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 07-7701, 2008 WL 2067044, at *1 (E.D.La. May 14, 2008) (Feldman, J.) ("Rule 59 motions should not be used to relitigate old matters, raise new arguments, or submit evidence that could have been presented earlier in the proceedings.")
Plaintiffs, citing Roberts, raised the same arguments in their opposition
For the foregoing reasons,
