Wright v. Union Pacific Railroad et al

AISHA WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:24-CV-03364
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD,
et al. ,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Defendants.
ORDER
Pending 	before 	this 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff Aisha 	Wright's 	("Plaintiff') 	Motion 	for
Reconsideration (Doc. No. 33) of the Court's Order dismissing the action because her claims were
barred by the statute of limitations (Doc. No. 32). Defendants Union Pacific Railroad and
Transportation Communication Union (collectively, "Defendants") did not respond.
Rule 59( e) motions call into question the correctness of a judgment. In re Transtexas Gas
Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly held that Rule 59(e)
motions are "not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Templet v. Hydro Chem Inc., 367 F.3d
47 3, 479 (5th Cir. 2004); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990). 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." Waltman v. Int'! Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473 (5th Cir.
1989) (internal quotations omitted).
In her Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff argues that she did not have adequate time to
respond to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 	18) and Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. No. 21) and that her "class action . . . did not include all of the Plaintiffs and dates
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 23, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-03364 Document 34 Filed on 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

which would be within the statute of limjtation[s]." (Doc. No. 32). As stated above, the Fifth
Circuit has repeatedly held that motions for reconsideration are not the appropriate avenue to plead
additional facts that could have been raised in response to the Defendants' motions. Templet, 367
F.3d at 479. As stated in the Court's previous Order (Doc. No. 32), Plaintiff was terminated from
her position at Union Pacific in 2018. Even at the very latest, the statute of limitations for the
Plaintiff's purported causes of action have long passed. (Id.). While she now claims that she did
not include all the relevant dates and putative plaintiffs into her lawsuit, she offered no evidence
or reference to evidence of any actions that may fall within the statute of limitations for any of her
claims. Thus, she did not present any "newly discovered evidence" to the Court that may alter the
existing analysis in the Court's Order (Doc. No. 32).
After considering the pleadings and relevant legal standards, the Court denies Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 33).
It is so ordered.
~
Signed on this the "26 1 day of December 2025.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2
Case 4:24-cv-03364 Document 34 Filed on 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 2