GLOBAL TOWER ASSETS LLC et al v. TOWN OF ROME et al

Filing 30

ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT denying 22 Motion to Amend Judgment; mooting 24 Motion for Leave to File New Information; mooting 27 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Opposition By JUDGE GEORGE Z. SINGAL. (lrc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
GLOBAL TOWER ASSETS, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
TOWN OF ROME, MAINE, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Docket no. 1:14-cv-00085-GZS
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER ON MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment with
Incorporated Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 22) (“Motion for Reconsideration”), Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record with New Information Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Rule
59(e) Motion (ECF No. 24), and Defendants’ Motion to Supplement Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record with New Information Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Rule
59(e) Motion (ECF No. 27). For the reasons briefly stated herein, the Court hereby DENIES the
Motion for Reconsideration and deems the other two Motions MOOT.
In this litigation, Plaintiffs Global Tower Assets, LLC and Northeast Wireless Networks,
LLC brought a case alleging violations of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c), among
other federal and state causes of action. On July 31, 2014, this Court granted a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim to the extent the Complaint asserted causes of action for violations of
47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II), and 332(c)(7)(B)(iii) and Plaintiffs’ due
process rights under the United States Constitution. (See Order on Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
19) (“July 31st Order”) at 11-19.) The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

the remaining state-law claims. (Id. at 20.) Through the present Motion, Plaintiffs ask the Court
to reconsider its July 31st Order dismissing the Complaint and for permission to amend the
Complaint. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that this Court issue an order extending the 60day deadline for administrative appeals, such as the decision by the Town of Rome Planning
Board, as provided under Maine law.
A motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides a court
with an opportunity to correct “manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985); see also Landrau-Romero
v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico, 212 F.3d 607, 612 (1st Cir. 2000) (providing that Rule 59(e)
motions must either “clearly establish a manifest error of law or present newly discovered
evidence”). The First Circuit has noted that it is difficult for a party to prevail on a Rule 59(e)
motion. See Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005). “To obtain
relief, the movant must demonstrate either that newly discovered evidence (not previously
available) has come to light or that the rendering court committed a manifest error of law.” Palmer
v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006). A party is not permitted to raise new
legal arguments or evidence on a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration. Landrau-Romero, 212
F.3d at 612. Further, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a vehicle for the losing party
to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected.

Nat’l Metal Finishing Co. v.

BarclaysAmerican/Commercial, Inc., 899 F.2d 119, 123 (1st Cir.1990).
In the present case, Plaintiffs have failed to sustain their burden. Plaintiffs have not pointed
to any manifest errors of law or fact, nor have they proffered any newly discovered evidence that
was not previously available to cast doubt on the Court’s July 31st Order. Instead, Plaintiffs use
the Motion to present arguments that were available prior to the Court’s entry of the July 31st

2

Order and to raise arguments previously rejected by the Court. Accordingly, the Court declines to
exercise the extraordinary remedy of granting reconsideration, re-opening this case and allowing
Plaintiffs to amend their Complaint. See Landrau-Romero, 212 F.3d at 612 (stating that “[a]s
[plaintiff’s] tolling argument was available to him before judgment was entered, he could not raise
it under Rule 59(e)”). The Court also declines to issue an order extending the 60-day deadline for
filing an administrative appeal. Therefore, the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 22) is
DENIED. Because the Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration, it deems the Motions to
Supplement (ECF Nos. 24 & 27) MOOT.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ George Z. Singal
United States District Judge
Dated this 30th day of December, 2014.

3