LUSBY v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION

Filing 349

ORDER - denying 343 Motion for Reconsideration *** SEE ORDER ***. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 2/4/2013. (CKM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

CURTIS J. LUSBY,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
CURTIS J. LUSBY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ROLLS-ROYCE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:03-cv-00680-SEB-WGH

ORDER DENYING RELATOR’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AND/OR
ALTERING/AMENDING JUDGMENT
This cause is before the Court on Relator’s Motion for New Trial and/or
Altering/Amending Judgment [Docket No. 343],1 filed on October 22, 2012, pursuant to Rule 59
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The purpose of a Rule 59 motion “is to bring the court’s
attention to newly discovered evidence or a manifest error o[f] law or fact. Neal v. Newspaper
Holdings, Inc., 349 F.3d 363, 368 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Bordelon v. Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of
Trustees, 233 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2000)). It is not designed to “‘introduce new evidence or
advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to
judgment.’” Bordelon, 233 F.3d at 529 (quoting Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th
Cir. 1996)). Here, Relator’s motion does nothing more than seek to rehash arguments and
evidence already presented to the district court on summary judgment. Although Relator has
recast some of his arguments in his Rule 59 motion, it is well-recognized that Rule 59 is not a
1

Relator moves generally under Rule 59 for “a new trial and/or altering/amending judgment.” However, because
there was no trial and thus no grounds for a new trial, we view Relator’s motion as invoking Rule 59(e)’s “motion to
alter or amend a judgment.”

vehicle to retry one’s case nor is it an opportunity for a second chance to reframe the same
evidence and arguments presented on summary judgment. Relator does not offer any newly
discovered evidence, cite to dispositive legal precedent, or point to a manifest error in the
Court’s analysis or opinion. Mere disagreement with the Court’s ruling is insufficient grounds
for a Rule 59 motion. Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (“A
‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the
wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.”) (quotations
and citation omitted). Accordingly, Relator’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

02/04/2013
Date: _________________________________
_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Joseph Striewe
[e-mail]
Jeff M. Barron
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Koryn Michelle McHone
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Michael R. Brunelle
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Richard P. Winegardner
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Peter Abernethy Morse, Jr
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Edward A. McConwell, Sr.
MCCONWELL LAW OFFICES
[e-mail]
Jill Z. Julian
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
[e-mail]