ORDER AND REASONS

JANE TRICHE MILAZZO, District Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 215). For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2018, this Court issued an Order and Reasons granting Motions for Summary Judgment by Defendants Darana Hybrid, Inc. ("Darana") and W&H Systems, Inc. ("W&H").1 On September 27, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration asking this Court to reconsider its Order and Reasons granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendants Darana and W&H.2 This Court's August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons details the Background of this litigation, and it need not be repeated here.

LEGAL STANDARD

A Motion for Reconsideration of an interlocutory order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).3 "Under Rule 54(b), `the trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive law.'"4

LAW AND ANALYSIS

In its August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons, this Court granted Darana and W&H summary judgment because they are both immune from tort liability under Louisiana law as "statutory" employers of Plaintiff Joshua Donahue.5 Plaintiffs now argue this Court should reconsider and reverse that Order because it contains "clear errors of law and fact, and [the Court] decided material issues of fact that should have been reserved for trial."6

Plaintiffs argue that this Court erred for four reasons.7 First, Plaintiffs argue that Darana and W&H are not entitled to summary judgment because the contract between Darana and Donahue's immediate employer is absolutely null, and as a result Defendants cannot rely on it to claim statutory employer status. Plaintiffs presented, and this Court rejected, that argument in response to Darana's Motion for Summary Judgment.8 Second, Plaintiffs argue that the "contracts between Defendants present genuine unresolved disputes as to their entitlement to immunity."9 Again, Plaintiffs presented, and this Court considered, this exact argument when reviewing the briefing for Darana's Motion for Summary Judgment.10 Third, Plaintiffs argue that summary judgment was premature "in light of the need for further discovery."11 Fourth, and finally, Plaintiffs argue that immunizing Darana and W&H from tort liability will result in manifest injustice.12

Plaintiffs' first two arguments are nothing more than mere disagreement with this Court's August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons. A Motion for Reconsideration is not the proper vehicle for such grievances. Plaintiffs' third argument is equally unpersuasive. This Court specifically notes that Darana's first Motion for Summary Judgment was filed more than a year before this Court issued its Order and Reasons ultimately granting Darana's re-urged request.13 In the interim, Darana's initial Motion was denied so more discovery could be completed, and it was.14 Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to conduct discovery in this case. Finally, granting Darana and W&H summary judgment will not result in manifest injustice. Plaintiff Donahue is receiving Worker's Compensation benefits for his injuries. Most importantly, however, it is this Court's duty to interpret the law, not to make it.15 This Court cannot hold parties liable for damages when the Louisiana legislature has provided that such parties are immune from tort liability. As such, Plaintiffs have failed to produce a reason sufficient for this Court to reverse its August 30, 2018 Order and Reasons.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.