Electrolux Home Prod v. Whitesell Corp

Filing 1184

ORDER denying 1117 Motion for Reconsideration. Each party shall bear their own costs. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 4/16/2019. (pts)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

WHITESELL CORPORATION,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
5

V.

*

CV 103-050

*

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS,

*

INC., HUSQVARNA, A.B., and

*

HUSQVARNA OUTDOOR PRODUCTS,

*

INC.,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Presently

before

the

Court

is

Plaintiff

Whitesell

Corporation's motion for reconsideration of an Order denying
its prior motion for reconsideration.

On May 17, 2016, the Court determined, in an exercise of
sound

discretion,

that

Plaintiff's

claim

for

prejudgment

interest under O.C.G.A. § 13-6-13 would not be allowed because

1) it was untimely (injected into the case IH years after the
First Amended Complaint was filed in the case); and 2) it was
futile. (See Order of May 17, 2016, Doc. No. 818.)

On

February

22,

2017,

Plaintiff

filed

a

motion

for

reconsideration of this ruling.

Noting that the motion itself

was "rather

9

ruling), the

late" (filed

over

Court denied the

months

motion

after

for

the

Court's

reconsideration

because Plaintiff's arguments did nothing to rebut the Court's
conclusion that the claim

litigation.

was injected too late into the

(See Order of May 15, 2017.)

The Court also

rejected Plaintiff's attempt to show that a clear error or
manifest injustice has occurred.

(Id.)

Plaintiff filed its present motion for reconsideration on
December 17, 2018, claiming that a case out of the Northern

District of Georgia "represents an intervening clarification

of existing law."

(Pl.'s Mot. for Reconsideration, Doc. No.

1117, at 4 (citing Caradiam USA LLC v. PruittHealth. Inc..
2018 WL 1959498 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 2018)).)
been

briefed,

and the

Court

The matter has

has carefully considered

the

issues raised.

Plaintiff's present motion for reconsideration does not

move the needle at all on the prejudgment interest issue in
this case.

First, Plaintiff waited almost 8 months after its

consequential case was decided to even file its latest motion
for reconsideration.

Second, a Northern District of Georgia

case is not binding upon this Court.

Third, the Caradiam case

does not show that this Court clearly erred in its prior

rulings on the matter.

It does nothing to undermine or

invalidate the Court's exercise of discretion in determining
the claim to be untimely.

And it does nothing to refute the

Court's finding that Plaintiff's unliquidated contract claims

cannot support a claim for prejudgment interest under the
circumstances of this case.

In short, the grounds raised by Plaintiff in its latest
motion for reconsideration do not warrant the "extraordinary

remedy" of reconsideration.

See Williams v. Cruise Ships

Catering & Serv. Int^l, N.V., 320 F. Supp. 2d 1347, 1358 (S.D.

Fla. 2004) ("[R]econsideration of a previous order is

^an

extraordinary remedy, to be employed sparingly.'" (citation
omitted)); Armbuster v. Rosenbloom, 2016 WL 1441467, at *1

(S.D. Ga. Apr. 11, 2016) ("[A] motion for reconsideration is
not

an

appeal, and thus it is improper on

a

motion

for

reconsideration to ^ask the Court to rethink what [the Court]

ha[s] already thought through - rightly or wrongly.'" (quoted
source and
motion

for

citations omitted)).
reconsideration

of

Accordingly, Plaintiff's
its

ruling

to

disallow

a

prejudgment interest claim in this case (doc. no. 1117) is
DENIED.

Each party shall bear their own costs.

ORDER ENTERED

at

Augusta,

Georgia, this

of

April, 2019.

j. raMal hall, chief judge

UNITED/ STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA