Jones v. Sparrows Offshore, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT 	COURT
FOR THE 	SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BILLY JOE 	JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 	H-24-4679
SPARROWS 	OFFSHORE, 	LLC 	and
MC 	OFFSHORE 	PETROLEUM, 	LLC,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 	ORDER
Pending before the 	court 	is 	Plaintiff Billy Joe Jones' 	Motion
for 	New 	Trial 	and 	to 	Alter 	or 	Amend 	the 	Judgment 	(Docket 	Entry
No. 	37) .
Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	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.
International 	Paper 	Co., 	875 	F.2d 	468, 	473 	(5th 	Cir. 	1989). 	"A
manifest 	error 	of 	law 	or 	fact 	must 	be 	one 	that 	is 	plain 	and
indisputable, 	and 	that 	amounts 	to 	a 	complete 	disregard 	of 	the
controlling law or the credible evidence in the record." 	Walker v.
HongHua 	America, 	LLC, 	Civ. 	Action 	No. 	4:12-cv-00134, 	2012
WL 	1898892, 	at 	*1 	(S.D. 	Tex. 	May 	23, 	2012) 	(internal 	quotation
marks 	omitted) . 	The 	Fifth 	Circuit 	has 	explained 	that 	Rule 	59
reconsideration 	"is 	an 	extraordinary 	remedy 	that 	should 	be 	used
sparingly." 	Templet v. 	HydroChem Inc., 	367 F.3d 473, 	479 	(5th Cir.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:24-cv-04679 Document 38 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2004) . 	As 	such, 	to 	prevail 	on 	a 	Rule 	59(e) 	motion 	for
reconsideration, 	a movant must show: 	"(1) 	an intervening change in
controlling 	law; 	(2) 	the 	availability 	of 	new 	evidence 	not
previously available; 	or 	(3) 	the 	need 	to 	correct 	a 	clear 	error of
law 	or 	prevent 	manifest 	injustice." 	In 	re 	Benjamin Moore 	& Co.,
318 	F.3d 	626, 	629 	(5th 	Cir. 	2002). 	A Rule 	59(e) 	motion 	"'calls
into 	question 	the 	correctness 	of 	a 	judgment, '" 	it 	is 	not 	"the
proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, 	legal theories, 	or arguments
that 	could 	have 	been 	offered 	or 	raised 	before 	the 	entry 	of
judgment." 	Templet, 	367 	F.3d at 	478-79 	(quoting 	In 	re 	Transtexas
Gas 	Corp., 	303 	F.3d 	571, 	581 	(5th 	Cir. 	2002)).
Plaintiff's arguments were raised and rejected in the 	court's
Memorandum 	Opinion 	and 	Order 	(Docket 	Entry 	No. 	35). 	His 	pending
motion 	falls 	far 	short 	of 	satisfying 	the 	requirement 	for 	relief
under 	Rule 	59(e). 	The 	reasons 	for 	which 	Plaintiff 	seeks
reconsideration neither 	argue 	nor 	show a 	manifest 	error 	of 	law or
fact, 	an intervening change in controlling law, 	or the availability
of 	new 	evidence 	not 	previously 	available.
Moore 	& 	Co., 	318 	F.3d at 	629.
See 	In 	re 	Benjamin
Accordingly, 	Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and to Alter or
Amend 	the 	Judgment 	(Docket 	Entry No. 	37) 	is 	DENIED.
SIGNED 	at 	Houston, 	Texas, 	on 	this 	the 	9th day 	of 	July, 	2026.
/' 	SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED 	STATES 	DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-
Case 4:24-cv-04679 Document 38 Filed 07/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2