United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
CARLISLE 2010 HISTORIC TAX CREDIT FUND II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PLAINTIFF
REGIONS BANK DEFENDANT
P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
September 11, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Regions
Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment in this fraud case,
finding Plaintiff Carlisle 2010 Historic Tax Credit Fund II
Limited Partnership's claims time-barred. Order .
Carlisle now asks the Court to reconsider its ruling and set
its claims for a jury trial. Because Carlisle's motion
raises new arguments not properly made on a motion for
reconsideration, Carlisle's Motion for Reconsideration
 is denied.
Facts and Procedural History
facts of the case are more fully set out in the Court's
Order  granting Regions' Motion for Summary Judgment.
Relevant here, in 2010, Carlisle agreed to help fund the
Dickies Building project in Jackson, Mississippi, in exchange
for certain tax credits the building would receive. At the
same time, following an initial loan of $2 million, Regions
provided a written commitment letter to the owner of the
Dickies Building for a modified loan of up to $2.4 million to
help complete renovations. “Regions considered
Carlisle's involvement as a tax-credit investor part of
the plan to get the Dickies Building project completed.
Regions also understood that Carlisle's participation in
the project depended on Regions' commitment of an
additional $400, 000 to the project.” Order  at
never advanced any additional money toward the project, and
“the evidence- when viewed in [the] light most
favorable to Carlisle-suggests that Regions never intended to
fund the loan.” Id. at 7. That said, Carlisle
first became aware of Regions' refusal to fund the loan
no later than 2012. See Pl.'s Resp.  ¶
45 (“Carlisle does not dispute that at some point in
2011 or 2012, it was learned from [a Dickies Building owner]
that Regions was refusing to advance any funds on the
modified loan.”). On that basis, and because it
concluded Carlisle had not offered proof to create a question
of fact on either element of the fraudulent-concealment test,
the Court ruled that Carlisle's fraud claims-filed in
June 2016-were time-barred. Carlisle now asks the Court to
reconsider that decision, asserting “that the Court
committed plain error by misapplying Mississippi law and
failing to construe the evidence in a light most favorable to
Carlisle.” Pl.'s Mem.  at 1-2. The Court held a
hearing on the motion on May 15, 2018, and invited limited
filed its motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
which provides for a motion “to alter or amend a
judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). “A Rule 59(e)
motion ‘calls into question the correctness of a
judgment.'” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367
F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Transtexas
Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
“[S]uch a motion is not the proper vehicle for
rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of
judgment.” Id. at 479. “Rather, Rule
59(e) serve[s] the narrow purpose of allowing a party to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.” Id. (citation and
quotation marks omitted). “Reconsideration of a
judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that
should be used sparingly.” Id. When faced with
a motion to reconsider, the Court must “strike the
proper balance between [two] competing interests”:
“1) the need to bring litigation to an end; and 2) the
need to render just decisions on the basis of all the
facts.” Id. (citing Lavespere v. Niagra
Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th
Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Little v.
Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1068 (5th Cir. 1994)).
thrust of Carlisle's motion for reconsideration is that
the Court got it wrong when it concluded that Carlisle's
claims were time-barred. To put Carlisle's current
arguments in context, the Court reviewed Regions'
summary-judgment motion and Carlisle's response.
original motion, Regions argued that the June 2016 Complaint
was time barred because “[t]he undisputed facts show
that Carlisle knew or should have known of its alleged claims
as early as 2011 and no later than 2012.” Def.'s
Mem.  at 2. Regions also said there was no evidence of
fraudulent concealment and urged the Court to dismiss the
suit. Id. at 9-10.
responded to Regions' time-bar argument with the
following four-paragraph argument:
Regions argues that Carlisle's claims are time barred by
the three (3) year statute of limitations set forth in Miss.
Code Ann. § 15-1-49. Regions argues that Carlisle's
claims accrued in 2011 or 2012 when Carlisle became aware
that Regions was refusing to advance additional funds on the
Modified loan and had to be asserted in 2015 at the latest.
The Court should reject this argument because there are
genuine issues of material fact as to when Carlisle's
claims accrued and whether Regions' fraudulent
concealment tolls the statute of limitations per Miss. Code
Ann. § 15-1-67.
Under Mississippi law, the statute of limitations on a
fraudulently concealed cause of action is tolled until
discovery. See Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-67. Here,
Regions fraudulently misrepresented that it was committing
“new money” to this project, when in fact the
bank had placed an undisclosed “no funding”
restriction on the Modified loan to ensure that no additional
funds would be advanced. This undisclosed restriction was
buried deep within Regions' internal loan documents and
concealed from Carlisle.
Although Carlisle was generally aware that Regions had not
advanced any additional loan proceeds by 2012, neither
Carlisle (nor [its business partner Oscar] Deleon) knew the
real reason for this until Regions' internal documents
came to light in August, 2015 in [another legal action].
Carlisle certainly did not know and could not have discovered
through ordinary diligence that Regions' actual
intentions were the exact opposite of its representations.
Regions does not explain how Carlisle could have possibly
discovered Regions' true intentions at some earlier point
in time. In fact, Regions is still perpetrating the deception
by maintaining that, despite what its loan history reveals,
it would have honored its commitment but for the fact that
Deleon did not submit a “proper” draw request and
the loan was in default. Although the fraud became apparent
after Regions' ...