BARRERA
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to present evidence that could have been raised earlier or to relitigate issues, and denied the motion as a result.
Plaintiff sued Carnival for negligence after tripping on a ship's gangway, alleging failure to inspect, maintain, and warn. The court dismissed the co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Manifest Error Of Law Or Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
Hilda Barrera, Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 21-23471-Civ-Scola v. )
) Carnival Corporation, Defendant. )
Order This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Hilda Barrera’s motion to amend the Court’s dismissal of her complaint (ECF No. 20) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and a contemporaneously-filed motion for leave to file an amended complaint. For the reasons below, the Court denies the Rule 59(e) motion (ECF No. 22) and by consequence denies as moot the motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 23).
Ms. Barrera was a passenger aboard the Carnival Dream on July 8, 2019 when she tripped and fell on “an uneven or misleveled [sic] section” of the ship’s gangway. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-12, ECF No. 1.) Ms. Barrera sued Carnival on two counts of negligence: one for Carnival’s purported failure to inspect and maintain the gangway, and another for Carnival’s failure to warn Ms. Barrera of the gangway’s condition. Carnival argued that Ms. Barrera failed to state a claim under both counts because she did not sufficiently plead its notice of the gangway’s condition. (ECF No. 7).
The Court granted dismissal. Ms. Barrera now files a Rule 59(e) motion to alter that decision. In contravention of Local Rule 7.1(a)(1), Ms. Barrera’s Rule 59(e) motion does not incorporate a memorandum of law thus leaving the Court to suppose that the basis for the motion is “new evidence”—a photo of the purportedly uneven gangway that accompanies Ms. Barrera’s separate motion for leave to file an amended complaint. (See ECF No. 23-2.) “The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newly discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Jones v. Thomas, 605 F. App’x. 813, 814 (11th Cir. 2015).
The Court does not consider Ms. Barrera’s photograph to be the type of evidence that warrants a reconsideration of its order. That is chiefly because the photograph has nothing to do with Ms. Barrera’s failure to plead negligence, which is the reason the Court dismissed her complaint.
Additionally, a party cannot utilize Rule 59(e) motion to “present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F. 3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Ms. Barrera’s Rule 59(e) motion also cites to her proposed amended complaint. To the extent she intends on relying on the proposed amended complaint as a basis for her Rule 59(e) motion, she cannot do so. A party cannot utilize a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters. Id. The proposed amended is nearly identical to the complaint the Court previously dismissed, except for insubstantial modifications. (See ECF No. 23-1.) Because Ms. Barrera’s Rule 59(e) motion does not specify a proper basis to alter the Court’s dismissal, the Court denies that motion (ECF No. 22) and denies as moot the accompanying motion to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 23).
Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on June 22, 2022.
N. Scola, Jr. United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Michael Linet, Inc. v. The Vill. OF Wellington, 408 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2005)