United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
LAKE, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Hamid Ihsan brought this action against defendant Weatherford
U.S., L.P. asserting claims for employment discrimination in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1981-1988 ("§ 1981''), Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2, et seq. ("Title VII"), and Texas
Commission on Human Rights Act, Texas Labor Code §§
21.051(1) and 21.055, based on race (South-Asian), color
(darker skin color), national origin (Pakistani-born), and
religion (Muslim) . By Memorandum Opinion and Order and Final
Judgment entered on May 21, 2019 (Docket Entry Nos. 30 and
31), the court granted defendant's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed this action with prejudice. Pending
before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 34). For the reasons stated
below, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration will be
action arises from defendant's termination of
plaintiff's employment as a mechanical engineer at
defendant's facility in Kingwood, Texas, on September 28,
2015. The factual background is set forth at length in the
May 21, 2019, Memorandum Opinion and Order (Docket Entry No.
30). In short, plaintiff alleges that defendant discriminated
against him on the basis of race (South-Asian), color (darker
skin color), national origin (Pakistani-born), and religion
(Muslim) when it terminated his employment.
filed this action on August 18, 2017 (Docket Entry No. 1). On
December 21, 2018, defendant moved for summary judgment on
all of plaintiff's claims (Docket Entry No. 21). On May
21, 2019, the court granted defendant's motion for
summary judgment, and dismissed this action with
timely filed its Bill of Costs on June 4, 2019 (Docket Entry
No. 32). Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Bill of
Costs. On June 20, 2019, costs were taxed to the plaintiff in
the amount of $7, 481.23.
20, 2019, plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 34) in which plaintiff
seeks relief from the final judgment that followed the
court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary
judgment, and relief from the costs taxed against him.
Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a general
motion for reconsideration," St. Paul Mercury
Insurance Company v. Fair Grounds Corporation, 123 F.3d
336, 339 (5th Cir. 1997), and plaintiff does not address the
standard of review this court should apply with respect to
the pending motion for reconsideration. In this circuit
motions to reconsider grants of summary judgment are treated
as either a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule
59(e) if filed within 28 days of the judgment at issue, or a
motion for relief from judgment or order under Rule 60(b) if
filed more than 28 days after the judgment at issue. See
Steward v. City of New Orleans, 537 Fed.Appx. 552, 554
(5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). The court granted the
defendant's motion for summary judgment and entered the
final judgment from which the plaintiff seeks relief on May
21, 2019, and plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration
on June 20, 2019, thirty days later. Because the pending
motion for reconsideration was filed more than twenty-eight
days after the judgment from which plaintiff seeks relief,
the pending motion for reconsideration is subject to review
under Rule 60(b).
60(b) provides, in part, that a district court "may
relieve a party . . . from a final judgment" for any one
of the following six enumerated reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for
a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States ex rel
Gage v. Davis S.R. Aviation, L.L.C., 658 Fed.Appx. 194,
197-98 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (citing Goldstein v.
MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 257 (5th Cir. 2003)).
considering such motions are duty-bound to "strike the
proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1)
finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the
basis of all the facts." Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc.
v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).
When additional evidence not part of the summary judgment
record is submitted in support of a motion for
reconsideration, courts consider the reasons for the moving
party's default, the importance of the omitted evidence
to the moving party's case, whether the evidence was
available before the party responded to the summary judgment
motion, and the likelihood that the nonmoving party will
suffer unfair prejudice if the case is reopened. See
Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works,
Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir. 1990). "[A]n
unexcused failure to present evidence available at the time
of summary judgment provides a valid basis for denying a
subsequent motion for reconsideration." Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied sub nom. Irvin v. Hydrochem,
Inc., 125 S.Ct. 411 (2004).
Motion for Reconsideration seeks relief from the judgment
that followed the court's grant of the defendant's
motion for summary judgment, and relief from defendant's
bill of costs.
Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Relief from Judgment.
has not identified which, if any, of the six enumerated
reasons for a Rule 60(b) motion on which he is relying.
Instead, plaintiff argues that there are three reasons why
the court should reconsider its decision on the sufficiency
of [the] evidence that could be viewed by a reasonable juror
during trial to conclude that Plaintiff has set forth a prima
facie claim of discrimination and retaliation sufficient to
satisfy the McDonnell Douglas Framework, ...