Hai-Yin v. Tao ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20158
Summary Calendar
WU HAI-YIN,
Plaintiff,
versus
TERRY CHI-MING TAO, ET AL.,
Defendants,
WU HAI-YIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TENG PO WEI, PEI LIN LU,
Defendants-Appellees,
WU HAI-YIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TAO CHI-MING, ET AL.,
Defendants,
WANG HUI CHI, also known as Michelle Wang;
ARROYO PRIME LIMITED, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-92-CV-3585, H-97-CV-3345, & H-97-CV-4114)
_________________________________________________________________
September 30, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Wu Hai-Yin appeals the summary judgment granted Teng Po Wei,
Pei Lin Lu, and Wang Hui Chi, as well as the denial of Wu’s “motion
for reconsideration” of those judgments. The motion for
reconsideration is considered a motion to alter or amend judgment
under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e). See Harcon Barge Co., Inc. v. D&G Boat
Rentals,Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 668 (5th Cir. 1986) (en banc), cert.
denied, 479 U.S. 930 (1986).
The district court refused to consider exhibits Wu attached to
her Rule 59(e) motion. Such refusal is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Bright, 34 F.3d 322, 324 (5th
Cir. 1994). “A district court is well within its discretion to
refuse to consider evidence submitted as part of a motion under
[FED. R. CIV. P.] 59(e) which was known to the moving party before
the summary judgment was issued.” Lake Hill Motors, Inc. v. Jim
Bennett Yacht Sales, Inc., 246 F.3d 752, 758 (5th Cir. 2001).
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Wu does not claim the information presented with her motion
was not known to her prior to entry of the summary judgment. Nor
has Wu shown that the district court abused its discretion or that
its ruling was unreasonable.
Wu’s contentions fail. The claimed error based on the
district court’s granting summary judgment relies upon evidence
which the court refused to consider and which is not properly
before our court.
AFFIRMED
3