Broussard v. Start Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASSANDRA BROUSSARD
VERSUS
START CORPORATION
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 26-278
DIVISION (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (R. Doc. 14). Defendant opposes the motion.1 Plaintiff
has not filed a reply. Based on the parties’ submissions, the record, and the law, the
motion is denied.
I. 	Background
On February 13, 2024, Defendant filed a partial motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim, which was set for submission on March 3, 2026.2 Plaintiff did not file
a response to Defendant’s motion. On March 3, 2026, the Court granted Defendant’s
motion as unopposed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, negligent supervision, and violation of the Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law.3 On March 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for
reconsideration relative to the Court’s March 3, 2026, order.4
1 R. Doc. 18.
2 R. Doc. 4.
3 R. Doc. 12.
4 R. Doc. 14.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 21 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	Standard of Law
Plaintiff brings her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). That
rule, however, is not applicable here. In Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326,
336 (5th Cir. 2017), the Fifth Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion
when 	it 	applied 	the 	“heightened 	standard 	of 	Rule 	59(e)” 	to 	a 	motion 	for
reconsideration of an interlocutory ruling rather than the “more flexible Rule 54(b)”
standard. See id. at 337. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit made clear that Rule 59(e) does
not apply to interlocutory rulings. Id.
The prior ruling on Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss was interlocutory.
See Carter v. RMH Teleservices, Inc., 205 F. App'x 214, 217 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006). Thus,
it is subject to Rule 54(b). Under Rule 54(b), “any order or other decision, however
designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of
fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties
and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the
claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” A trial court is “free to reconsider
and reverse [an interlocutory] decision for any reason it deems sufficient, even in the
absence of new evidence or an intervening change in or clarification of the substantive
law.” Id. at 336 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, “Rule 54(b)’s
approach to the interlocutory presentation of new arguments as the case evolves can
be [ ] flexible, reflecting the ‘inherent power of the rendering district court to afford
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 21 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 4

3
such relief from interlocutory judgments as justice requires.’” See id. at 337 (quoting
Cobell v. Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25–26 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).
III. 	Analysis
A court may reconsider an earlier ruling “for any reason it deems sufficient ....”
Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d at 336. Plaintiff, however, has presented no
persuasive justification for reconsideration of the prior ruling.
Plaintiff has not established any error in the ruling. Plaintiff maintains that
she sufficiently alleged a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Her
motion, however, is devoid of any supporting authority.5 In addition, Plaintiff claims
that the exclusivity provision of the Louisiana Workers’ Compensation Act (“LWCA”)
only applies to physical workplace injuries. Courts have rejected similar arguments.
See Jackson v. Country Club of Louisiana, Inc., No. 20-452, 2021 WL 261538, at *3
(M.D. La. Jan. 26, 2021) (rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that the LWCA did not exclude
their negligence claims because they suffered only mental injuries); Pearson v. IHOP,
No. 09-3071, 2010 WL 971798, at *4 (E.D. La. Mar. 10, 2010); see also Ward v. Bechtel
Corp., 102 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 1997).
5 Plaintiff also incorrectly interprets the Court’s March 3, 2026 order as dismissing
all claims. R. Doc. 14-1 at 8.
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 21 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IV. 	Conclusion
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (R. Doc. 14) is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 2 nd day of April, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-00278-EJD Document 21 Filed 04/02/26 Page 4 of 4