Malaco, Inc. v. Norman et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MALACO, INC. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-266
DION NORMAN & DERRICK ORDOGNE 	SECTION: N
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration1 of this Court’s
September 16, 2026, order and reasons2 granting Plaintiff’s first motion for partial
summary judgment.3 Plaintiff Malaco, Inc. opposes this motion.4 Defendants filed a
reply in support.5 For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.
I. 	Background
This case involves a dispute over the legal rights to two popular New Orleans
nightclub songs recorded in the early 1990s: “Where They At” and “Bitches (Reply).”6
On September 16, 2026, this Court issued an order and reasons granting Malaco’s first
motion for partial summary judgment on declaratory judgment counts one through
four.7 The Court found, primarily, that Defendants hold no copyright ownership in the
publishing or sound recording rights for either song, as their claims to such rights are
time-barred.8
1 Rec. Doc. 81.
2 Rec. Doc. 77.
3 Rec. Doc. 31.
4 Rec. Doc. 84.
5 Rec. Doc. 89.
6 See Rec. Doc. 77 at 1-3, Section I (“Background”).
7 Rec. Doc. 77.
8 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 91 Filed 09/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On September 21, 2026, Defendants filed the instant motion for reconsideration,
arguing that the Court committed manifest errors of law and fact regarding the accrual
of the statute of limitations for their copyright ownership claims arising from their
claimed authorship of the two songs.9 Defendants presented new legal theories and
new 	evidentiary 	support, 	claiming 	a 	long-running 	course 	of 	dealing 	between
Defendants and Malaco and Malaco’s predecessor-in-interest and filing exhibits not
previously submitted to the Court.10 Malaco argues first that the Court should not
consider rejected arguments or new arguments that could have been raised previously
by Defendants.11 Second, Malaco argues that Defendants’ arguments fail on the merits
because any conduct that occurred more than three years after 1992 cannot revive the
claims that had already accrued and become time barred.12 Lastly, Malaco argues a
reconsideration of counts one through four would significantly prejudice Malaco given
the imminent trial date.13
II. 	Law and Analysis
This Court’s order adjudicated “fewer than all the claims” and therefore is
interlocutory.14 	A 	district 	court 	“possesses 	the 	inherent 	procedural 	power 	to
reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be
sufficient.”15 The court “must exercise this broad discretion sparingly,” however, “to
9 Rec. Doc. 81 at 1.
10 Id. at 4-5.
11 Rec. Doc. 84 at 6.
12 Id. at 13.
13 Id. at 15.
14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
15 Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 553 (5th Cir. 1981).
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 91 Filed 09/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens and
delays.”16 “[A]lthough a district court may revisit an interlocutory order on any
ground it sees fit, it may also use its discretion to prevent parties from, “without
justification, rais[ing] new arguments for the first time.”17
In Calpetco, the Fifth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a motion for
reconsideration when the plaintiff offered thirty-seven new documents and offered no
explanation as to its failure to submit the documents earlier.18 The Court reasoned
that the district court was not required to reconsider a summary judgment “simply
because Calpetco belatedly came forward with evidence not submitted prior to the
ruling.”19 	If 	the 	answer 	was 	to 	reconsider 	the 	new 	evidence, 	“the 	cycle 	of
reconsideration would be never-ending.”20
The same reasoning applies here. Defendants now rely on more than forty new
exhibits that they failed to tender previously, with no explanation for their earlier
omission, and Malaco claims were never produced in discovery. As the Court held in
Calpetco, just because Defendants now come forward with new evidence of course of
dealing, the Court is not required to reconsider its ruling on partial summary
16 In re TK Boat Rentals, LLC, No. CV 17-1545, 2019 WL 13241984, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 9, 2019).
17 Domain Prot., LLC v. Sea Wasp, LLC, No. 4:18-CV-792, 2019 WL 3933614, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20,
2019) (citation modified); 18B Wright & Miller's Federal Practice & Procedure § 4478.1 (3d ed. 2019)
(“A trial court could not operate if it were to yield to every request to reconsider each of the multitude
of rulings that may be made between filing and final judgment.”).
18 Calpetco 1981 v. Marshall Expl., Inc., 989 F.2d 1408, 1415 (5th Cir. 1993).
19 Id.
20 Id.; see also In Re TK Boat Rentals, LLC, 2019 WL 13241984, at *3 (“None of the practical issues
AGCS now raises in its motion for reconsideration was urged in its original motion though they could
have been. Nor were the issues addressed by the Court's September 6, 2018 order. Thus, AGCS's
motion for reconsideration improperly asks the Court to resolve issues that were not before it then or
properly before it now.”).
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 91 Filed 09/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
judgment.21 Doing so would hinder the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination”
of the action.22 In any event, Defendants’ new evidence fails to establish a dispute as
to any material fact underlying the Court’s order. Instead, it primarily relates to
business 	dealings 	that 	occurred 	far 	more 	than 	three 	years 	after 	Defendants’
ownership was expressly repudiated. Again, Defendants provide no explanation for
why they did not submit these materials with their opposition to Malaco’s motion—
even after the Court sua sponte granted Defendants leave to file an amended
statement of uncontested material facts in opposition when their initial statement
failed to cite record evidence or indicate whether they admit or deny Malaco’s
statement of uncontested materials facts.23 It is within the Court’s “considerable
discretion” to determine that “enough is enough.”24 As to any other legal theory that
Defendants attempt to relitigate, the Court finds the arguments unpersuasive and
that any further consideration of the Court’s order would be prejudicial to Malaco.
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of September, 2026.
__________________________________
ANNA ST. JOHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21 Calpetco 1981, 989 F.2d at 1415.
22 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 1).
23 Rec. Doc. 49.
24 Calpetco 1981, 989 F.2d at 1415.
Case 2:25-cv-00266-ASJ-EJD Document 91 Filed 09/29/26 Page 4 of 4