Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. et al

Filing 955

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 950 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Clarifying 8/10/21 Memorandum Order. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 10/7/2021. (bmhs, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
VICTOR STANLEY, INC.,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

SCH ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al. ,
Defendants.
*

*

*

Civil Action No. RDB-06-2662

*
*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM ORDER

*

*

*

On August 2, 2021, this Court held a Show Cause hearing to determine the remaining
amounts owed by Defendants to Plaintiff on sanctions in the amount of $1,281,315.91
awarded on April 20, 2016 for Defendants’ failures to comply with the Court’s Orders. (ECF
Nos. 941, 942.) In 2019, Plaintiff had been awarded $143,087.62 in attorneys’ fees and costs
relating to those failures from April 21, 2016 to November 20, 2018. (ECF Nos. 890, 891.)
At the August 2, 2021 hearing, the parties agreed that $22,877.00 was the appropriate interest
amount on the recently paid sanctions award of $395,691.67. (ECF No. 942.) The parties
also agreed that Defendant still owed the balance of the August 14, 2019 attorneys’ fee award
of $143,087.62 for Plaintiff’s efforts in collecting on the 2016 Sanctions Award from April 21,
2016 to November 20, 2018. (ECF Nos. 890, 891.) Consequently, this Court awarded Plaintiff
$22,877.00 in sanctions and directed Plaintiff’s attorney to submit a supplemental request for
attorneys’ fees from November 20, 2018 to the present. (ECF No. 942.)
On August 10, 2021, this Court entered a Memorandum Order awarding additional
attorneys’ fees in the amount of $56,193 to be paid within 90 days, i.e. by November 8, 2021.

(ECF No. 944.) On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff filed a letter seeking clarification from this
Court as to whether the $143,087.62 attorneys’ fees amount awarded in 2019 should also be
included in the amount to be paid within 90 days, i.e. by November 8, 2021. (ECF No. 945.)
While the Court indicated on the record at the August 2, 2021 hearing that Defendants would
be required to pay all attorneys’ fees within 90 days, including the $143,087.62 attorneys’ fees
amount, the Memorandum Order (ECF No. 944) inadvertently omitted that statement.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that a court may, “on motion or on its own,”
“correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is
found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Accordingly,
on August 23, 2021, this Court clarified its August 10, 2021 Memorandum Order as follows:
It is this 23rd Day of August, 2021, HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s
Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF No. 943) is GRANTED IN
PART and Defendants shall pay $56,193.00 in attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff within
90 days of this Order, i.e. no later than November 21, 2021. In addition,
Defendants shall pay the previously awarded attorneys’ fees amount of
$143,087.62 to Plaintiff within 90 days of this Order, i.e. no later than
November 21, 2021. Defendants shall be jointly and severally obligated to pay
these sums to Plaintiff.
(ECF No. 948.)
Now pending is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Clarifying August
10, 2021 Memorandum Order. (ECF No. 950.) The submissions have been reviewed and no
hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons stated herein,
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Clarifying August 10, 2021 Memorandum
Order (ECF No. 950) is DENIED.
Rule 59(e) authorizes a district court to alter, amend, or vacate a prior judgment, while
Rule 60 provides for relief from judgment. See Katyle v. Penn Nat’l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462,
2

471 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 115 (2011). As this Court explained in Cross v.
Fleet Reserve Ass’n Pension Plan, WDQ-05-0001, 2010 WL 3609530, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 14,
2010):
A party may move to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), or for relief
from a judgment under Rule 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) & 60(b). A motion
to alter or amend filed within 28 days of the judgment is analyzed under Rule
59(e); if the motion is filed later, Rule 60(b) controls. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e);
MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269, 280 (4th Cir. 2008); In re
Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 2-3 (4th Cir. 1992).
(footnote omitted). Defendants filed their motion within 28 days of this Court’s Order
Clarifying August 10, 2021 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, Rule 59(e) governs this Court’s
analysis. See, e.g., Knott v. Wedgwood, DKC-13-2486, 2014 WL 4660811, at *2 (D. Md. Sept. 11,
2014) (“Although Plaintiff purports to bring his motion for reconsideration under Rule
60(b)(1), because it was filed within twenty-eight days of entry of the underlying order, it is
properly analyzed under Rule 59(e).”)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has repeatedly recognized
that a final judgment may be amended under Rule 59(e) in only three circumstances: (1) to
accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not
available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. See, e.g.,
Gagliano v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 547 F.3d 230, 241 n.8 (4th Cir. 2008); see also Fleming v.
Maryland National Capital Park & Panning Commission, DKC-11-2769, 2012 WL 12877387, at *1
(D. Md. Mar. 8, 2012). A Rule 59(e) motion “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to
raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment.”
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998); see also Kelly v. Simpson,
RDB-16-4067, 2017 WL 4065820, at *1 (D. Md. Jan. 26, 2017). Moreover, “[t]he district court
3

has considerable discretion in deciding whether to modify or amend a judgment.” Fleming,
2012 WL 12877387, at *1.
Defendants have not met the high bar they face to succeed on their Motion to
Reconsider. There has been no intervening change in controlling law since this Court’s Orders
of August 26, 2021 and August 10, 2021; no new evidence has come to light; and no clear
error of law or manifest injustice has been identified in this Court’s Order. Contrary to
Defendants’ assertion, the fact that Magistrate Judge Sullivan did not set a date certain for
Defendants to pay the attorneys’ fee award never precluded this Court from setting such a
date. Indeed, this Court was compelled to set a date certain for Defendants to pay the
remaining attorneys’ fees amount in light of Defendants’ ongoing violations of this Court’s
Orders. (See August 10, 2021 Memorandum Order, ECF No. 944.)
For the foregoing reasons, it is this 7th day of October, 2021, HEREBY ORDERED
that:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Clarifying August 10, 2021
Memorandum Order (ECF No. 950) is DENIED; and
2. The Clerk of the Court transmit copies of this Memorandum Order to counsel of
record.

______/s/________________
Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

4