Pullins v. Hancock Whitney Bank
3:19-cv-00006
M.D. La.Apr 1, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Nekeia Pullins moved for reconsideration of the Court’s January 11, 2021 ruling that granted Hancock Whitney Bank’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed her complaint.
- The reconsideration motion was filed after the 28‑day period and did not invoke Rule 59 or Rule 60 expressly.
- Plaintiff’s submission chiefly argued that the Court erred on the merits of the 12(b)(6) dismissal — essentially rehashing prior arguments rather than presenting manifest error or new evidence.
- The Court reviewed the standards for Rule 59(e) (manifest error/newly discovered evidence) and Rule 60(b) (grounds and equitable factors for relief) and summarized the controlling factors for reconsideration/relief.
- The Court concluded Pullins failed to satisfy either Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) standards and denied the motion for reconsideration; judgment to be entered.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper characterization of the motion (Rule 59(e) vs Rule 60(b)) | Court misapplied law; asked reconsideration of dismissal | Motion is post‑judgment and must meet the strict standards for reconsideration/relief | Court applied post‑judgment standards and concluded relief was not warranted |
| Whether Pullins showed manifest error of law or fact or newly discovered evidence under Rule 59(e) | The Court was wrong on its Rule 12(b)(6) decision | Pullins merely rehashed arguments already considered | Denied — no manifest error or new evidence shown; reargument not permitted |
| Whether Pullins satisfied any Rule 60(b) ground or the equitable factors for relief | (No specific Rule 60 grounds pleaded) | Motion fails to meet any Rule 60(b) criteria or factors | Denied — plaintiff did not address or demonstrate any Rule 60(b) basis or intervening equities |
Key Cases Cited
- Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) (standard: Rule 59(e) cannot be used to rehash arguments; manifest error required)
- Advocare Intern. LP v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc., 524 F.3d 679 (5th Cir. 2008) (describes Rule 59(e) standard and newly discovered evidence requirement)
- Guy v. Crown Equip. Corp., 394 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2004) (definition of "manifest error" as plain and indisputable)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (sets out multiple equitable factors for Rule 60(b) motions)
- Seven Elves v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (7th Cir. 1981) (framework for evaluating Rule 60(b) relief)
- Hamilton Rothschilds v. Williams Rothschilds, 147 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 1998) (timing consideration distinguishing Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b))