United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 301], Defendant Foster Wheeler
Energy Corporation's Motion for Joinder in CBS
Corporation's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 301], Defendant Gardner and
Denver, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction, [Doc. No. 306], Defendant Gardner and Denver,
Inc.'s Motion to Quash the Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of
Deposition and to Stay Discovery Against Gardner and Denver,
Inc., [Doc. No. 308], Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC's
Motion for Joinder in CBS Corporation's Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 315],
Plaintiff's Objections to Notice of Taking the Deposition
of John C. Maddox, M.D. and Subpoena Duces Tecum, [Doc. No.
330], Defendant Eaton Corporation, as Successor in Interest
to Cutler-Hammer, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration of
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Amended Petition, [Doc. No. 339], Defendant CBS
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,
[Doc. No. 340], Defendant General Electric Company's
Motion for Clarification, [Doc. No. 341], and Defendant
Warren Pumps, LLC's Motion for Clarification, [Doc. No.
motions for joinder in CBS's opposition to the Motion for
Reconsideration, [Doc. No. 305 and 315], are granted.
27, 2017, the Court granted several defendants' Motions
to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now
ask the Court to reconsider those dismissals by virtue of
“an intervening change in the law since the parties
briefed personal jurisdiction issues for the Court.”
Plaintiffs rely on the June 19, 2017 United States Supreme
Court decision of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior
Court of California, San Francisco Cty., ___ U.S. ___,
137 S.Ct. 1773 (2017).
59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it
'may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise
arguments or present evidence that could have been raised
prior to the entry of judgment.' 11 C. Wright & A.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ' 2810.1, pp.
127-128 (2d ed.1995) (footnotes omitted).'' Exxon
Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 128 S.Ct. 2605,
2617, n. 5 (2008).
59(e) was adopted to clarify that ''the district
court possesses the power to rectify its own mistakes in the
period immediately following the entry of judgment.''
White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec.,
455 U.S. 445, 450, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982)
(internal quotations omitted). Moreover, ''Rule 59(e)
motions serve the limited function of correcting manifest
errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.'' Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v.
P.T .-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284,
1286 (8th Cir. 1998), (internal punctuation and citations
omitted). ''Such motions cannot be used to introduce
new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments
which could have been offered or raised prior to entry of
judgment.'' United States v. Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer Dist., 440 F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir.2006)
(quoting Innovative Home Health Care, 141 F.3d at
courts ''will ordinarily deny a motion for
reconsideration unless the party demonstrates a showing of
manifest error in the prior ruling or demonstrates new facts
or legal authority that the party could not have previously
produced with reasonable diligence to the court.''
Elder-Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 988 (8th
Cir.2006); Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours &
Co., 2011 WL 322672 at *4 (E.D.Mo. Jan.31, 2011);
Arnold v. ADT Sec. Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 716, 721
(8th Cir.2010). A motion to reconsider ''cannot be
used to raise arguments which could have been raised prior to
the issuance of judgment.'' Hagerman v.
Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th
Cir.1988). District courts have ''broad
discretion'' in determining whether to reconsider
judgment. Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 413.
Defendants point out, the Bristol-Myers decision was
rendered before this Court's Opinion. Plaintiff argues
that it was decided after the parties had briefed the
personal jurisdiction issues for the Court. This explanation
is clearly an attempt to avoid Rule 59(e)'s prohibition
against raising arguments that could have been raised prior
to the decision. Indeed, Plaintiffs have not been shy when it
comes to seeking leave to supplement, present new authority
on pending issues and obtaining extensions before the Court.
Plaintiffs' valiant attempt, however fails to overcome
the obvious Rule 59(e) obstacle prohibiting raising argument
that could have been raised prior to the decision.
even assuming the Court considered Plaintiff's reasoning
regarding a new issue of law, the Bristol-Myers
decision does not mandate reconsideration. In
Bristol-Myers, the Supreme Court, in dicta
did not decide left open the question of whether a federal
court might, under some circumstances, exercise broader
personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment than is
available to state courts under the Fourteenth Amendment by
basing a decision on nationwide contacts rather than the
contacts within the forum state. More significantly,
Bristol-Myers Court reiterated the need to maintain
a “straightforward application” of the
“settled principles of personal jurisdiction.”
The Court focused on the need for an “affiliation
between the forum and the underlying controversy,
principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place
in the forum State.” Id. at *11, *7 (quoting
Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). The Court reiterated
that it is not enough for a defendant to have general
connections with the forum-there must be a connection between
the forum and the specific claims at issue. Id. at
*8. The Court found the connection between the California
forum and the nonresident plaintiffs too weak for a
California court to claim specific jurisdiction. Id.
Court articulated its reasoning in finding that it lacked
personal jurisdiction over the dismissed Defendants. Nothing
has changed, nor should the Opinion, Memorandum and Order in
this matter be altered or amended under Rule 59(e). The
Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Gardner Denver, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
removed this matter to federal court from the Circuit Court
of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, on January 19, 2017.
According to the Petition, Defendants maintain registered
agents in the state of Missouri, and are engaged in business
in Missouri. Plaintiff Willie Everett is a resident of
Missouri who was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or
otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers and/or asbestiform fibers
emanating from certain products he was working with and
around which were manufactured, sold, distributed or
installed by Defendants. Defendant moves to dismiss the
action under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons
set forth ...