Tran v. Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MY THI NHU TRAN, ET AL. 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 24-1933
GULF COAST BANK & TRUST CO., ET AL. 	SECTION: D(5)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	for 	Limited 	Reconsideration 	and
Clarification of Order on Defendants’ Omnibus Motion in Limine filed by Plaintiffs.1
Defendants oppose the Motion.2 Plaintiffs filed a reply.3 After careful consideration
of the parties’ memoranda, the record, and the applicable law, the Motion is
DENIED.
I. 	BACKGROUND4
On September 23, 2026, the Court issued an Order and Reasons granting in
part 	and 	denying 	in 	part 	the 	Defendants’ 	Omnibus 	Motions 	in 	Limine.5 	On
September 28, 2026, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Reconsider.6
In their Motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Order should be reconsidered to
“distinguish excluded characterizations from evidence independently relevant to
surviving claims.”7 Plaintiffs argue that the Order conflates characterizations of
1 R. Doc. 305.
2 R. Doc. 319.
3 R. Doc. 324.
4 In the interest of judicial economy, and because the factual and procedural history of this case was
set out in great detail in several previous Orders and Reasons, it adopts the Factual Background as
set forth in those rulings. See R. Doc. 299 and 227.
5 R. Doc. 300.
6 R. Doc. 305.
7 Id. at p. 2.
Case 2:24-cv-01933-WBV-MBN Document 362 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 5

2
fraud with evidence execution, authorization, knowledge, knowing adoption, and
consent.8 Plaintiffs contend that there is still a question of who placed a signature on
a document, and the Order bars the Plaintiffs from being able to accurately testify to
their account of which documents they signed.9
In their Response,10 Defendants argue that the Court’s Order on the Motion in
Limine already grants the relief requested by the Plaintiffs.11 Defendants argue that
the 	Motion 	for 	Reconsideration 	offers 	no 	new 	facts, 	authority, 	or 	reason 	for
reconsideration other than disagreement with the Order.12 Instead, Defendants
argue, the Plaintiffs are attempting to insinuate that forgery occurred without
directly stating so.13
In their Reply,14 Plaintiffs assert that the only remaining issue in dispute is
“Defendants’ contention that Plaintiffs may not ‘pair’ their firsthand testimony
denying execution or authorization with evidence concerning the provenance and
handling of disputed instruments because the combination could suggest forgery.”15
Plaintiffs argue that this position excludes relevant evidence due to the concern that
the jury may draw an inference of forgery or fraud.16
8 Id.
9 Id. at pp. 2-3.
10 R. Doc. 319.
11 Id. at p. 1.
12 Id.
13 Id. at p. 5.
14 R. Doc. 324.
15 Id. at p. 2 (citing R. Doc. 319 at pp. 5-6).
16 Id.
Case 2:24-cv-01933-WBV-MBN Document 362 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 5

3
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) “allows parties to seek reconsideration of
interlocutory orders and authorizes the district court to ‘revise[] at any time’ ‘any
order or other decision . . . [that] does not end the action.”17 Under Rule 54(b), “the
trial court is free to reconsider and reverse its 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.”18 Whether to grant a motion to reconsider under
Rule 54(b) “rests within the discretion of the court.”19 Still, the broad authority to
reconsider an interlocutory order under Rule 54(b) “must be exercised sparingly in
order to forestall the perpetual reexamination of orders and the resulting burdens
and delays.”20 Motions for such reconsideration “are not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments.”21
III. 	ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs fail to meet the standard for reconsideration. “When there exists no
independent reason for reconsideration other than mere disagreement with a prior
order, reconsideration is a waste of judicial time and resources and should not be
17 Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326, 336 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)).
18 Id. (quoting Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 185 (5th Cir. 1990),
abrogated on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 n.14 (5th Cir. 1994))
(internal quotation marks omitted).
19 Namer v. Scottsdale Insur. Co., 314 F.R.D. 392, 393 (E.D. La. 2016) (Africk, J.) (quoting Bernard v.
Grefer, Civ. A. No. 14-887, 2015 WL 3485761, at *5 (E.D. La. June 2, 2015) (Fallon, J.)) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
20 Southern Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc., 921 F. Supp. 2d 548, 564–65 (E.D. La. 2013)
(citing 18B C HARLES A. WRIGHT & A RTHUR R. MILLER, FED. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4478.1 (2d ed.
2002)).
21 Whale Cap., L.P. v. Ridgeway, No. CV 22-2570, 2024 WL 894866, at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 1, 2024)
(Currault, M.J.) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)).
Case 2:24-cv-01933-WBV-MBN Document 362 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 5

4
granted.”22 	Plaintiffs 	give 	no 	new 	facts, 	authority, 	or 	argument 	warranting
reconsideration of the Order.
Plaintiffs contend that they recall signing only a single sheet at closing.23
Plaintiffs will be under oath to testify truthfully as to their recollection of events. To
the extent that Plaintiffs seek clarification of its Order, the Court makes clear: The
Order on the Defendants Omnibus Motion in Limine24 does not bar truthful and
accurate testimony by the Plaintiffs. Indeed, the Plaintiffs, similar to any other
witness, must testify truthfully. Instead, the Order bars testimony specifically
asserting legal claims of forgery, identity theft, and fraud, that have been dismissed
by the Court for lack of evidence.25 Nothing in that Order was intended or should be
construed as barring truthful testimony. Should any party have any question
regarding whether a witness may testify to an issue, the Rules of Civil Procedure
provide for recourse through contemporaneous objection, approaching the bench for
clarification, or for a curative jury instruction.26
22 Id.
23 R. Doc. 324 at p. 7.
24 R. Doc. 300.
25 Id. at pp. 5-6.
26 The Court notes that, after the submission of this Motion, the Court held a status conference with
all parties and discussed, among other matters, this issue. See R. Doc. 355. It was the Court’s
understanding following that status conference that this issue was clarified for all parties. To the
extent that there is confusion, counsel should bring it to the court’s attention in the manner noted
above.
Case 2:24-cv-01933-WBV-MBN Document 362 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 5

5
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT 	IS 	HEREBY 	ORDERED 	that 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	for 	Limited
Reconsideration and Clarification of Order on Defendants’ Omnibus Motion in
Limine27 is DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, October 16, 2026.
_____________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
United States District Judge
27 R. Doc. 305.
Case 2:24-cv-01933-WBV-MBN Document 362 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 5