American President Lines, Ltd. v. Marine Mechanical, Inc.

Filing 185

ORDER denying 184 Motion for Reconsideration re 183 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge John W. Sedwick on 6/20/13. (GMM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
MARINE MECHANICAL INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

3:10-cv-00029 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at docket 184]

At docket 184 plaintiff American President Lines, Ltd. (“APL”) asks the court to
reconsider two specific aspects of the decision set forth in the order at docket 183.
Specifically, APL asks the court to reconsider its decision on the scope of Article 7 of
the parties’ contract and to reconsider its characterization of the 2003 substitution of
defendant Marine Mechanical, Inc. (“MMI”) for Marine Maintenance, Inc.
The Ninth Circuit has explained when a district court should reconsider a prior
decision: “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”1
APL offers no newly discovered evidence and does not point to any intervening
change in the law. Neither does APL urge that the court’s decision was manifestly
unjust. Rather, it contends that the court erred.

1

School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
(9th Cir. 1993).

-1-

With respect to the court’s decision on the scope of Article 7, this court has
considered APL’s argument and does not find it persuasive. The court continues to
believe that its analysis of Article 7 as set forth in the order at docket 183 is correct.
With respect to whether there was a novation or an assignment when MMI was
substituted for Marine Maintenance, Inc., it was not clear error to characterize the
substitution as the court did in the order at docket 183, because what the court wrote is
clearly consistent with APL’s own characterization of the event as alleged in paragraph
16 of its complaint, which reads in pertinent part: “MMI succeeded to all of Marine
Maintenance Inc.’s obligations under the contract by assignment in 2003.”2 This
allegation was admitted in MMI’s answer, which also explicitly refers to “the contract and
assignment.”2
For the reasons above, the motion for reconsideration at docket 184 is DENIED.
DATED this 20th day of June 2013.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Doc. 1-4, ¶16 at page 3 (emphasis added).

2

Doc. 9, ¶ 16 at page 3.

-2-