Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. v. MJ Solutions GmbH
ORDER Denying 37 Motion to Amend the Judgment, Vacate the Injunction, or Clarify the Injunction. Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 8/6/2015. (DLO) Modified text on 8/6/2015 (LJG).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 14-5030(DSD/TNL)
Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc.,
MJ Solutions GmbH,
Bruce J. Koch, Esq., Thorsten Schmidt, Esq. and Schmidt LLC,
560 Lexington Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022; Erin E.
Westbrook, Esq. and Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, 225 South Sixth
Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 54402, counsel for
David A. Davenport, Esq. and Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, 225
South Sixth Street, Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel
This matter is before the court upon the motion of petitioner
Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. to amend the judgment, vacate the
injunction, or to clarify the injunction.
Based on a review of the
reasons, the court denies the motion.
The background of this matter is fully set forth in the
court’s June 2, 2015, order granting respondent MJ Solutions GmbH’s
motion to confirm arbitration award, and the court recites only
those facts necessary to resolve the instant motion.
previous order, the court rejected Arkwright’s argument that the
Arkwright now asks the court to revisit that determination, arguing
that the court erred by not addressing its arguments that the
injunction is improper and overly broad.
Arkwright does not rely
on new law or recently discovered facts in support of its position,
but instead more fully briefs and supports the arguments already
presented and rejected by the court or that could have been
presented, but were not. Arkwright specifically moves to amend the
judgment, vacate the injunction, or clarify the injunction under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
A motion to alter or amend judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e),
serves the limited function of “correcting manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.”1
Health Care, Inc. v. P.T.-O.T. Assocs. of the Black Hills, 141 F.3d
1284, 1286 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations omitted). Rule
59(e) does not afford an opportunity to present evidence or legal
The court notes that the “[t]he practice of this district
is to utilize Rule 59(e) motions to address mechanical changes to
a judgment, such as correcting a dollar amount that was incorrectly
entered, and not to request the Court to reconsider the substance
of a ruling.” Schwarz Pharma, Inc. V. Paddock Labs., No. 05-832,
2006 WL 3359336, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2006). In contrast, “the
vehicle to correct substantive errors,” as Arkwright apparently
seeks to do here, “is to ask leave to bring a motion to reconsider
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g)[.]” Id. Arkwright failed to request
leave to move under Local Rule 7.1 within the time period
argument that could have been offered prior to entry of judgment.
See Freeman v. Busch, 349 F.3d 582, 589 (8th Cir. 2003).
the rule be used to rehash arguments already made and lost.
Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 827 (8th Cir. 2000).
motion under Rule 59 “is not intended to routinely give litigants
a second bite at the apple, but to afford an opportunity for relief
in extraordinary circumstances.”
Dale & Selby Superette & Deli v.
U.S. Dep’t of Ag., 838 F. Supp. 1346, 1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
court has “broad discretion in determining whether to open a
judgment pursuant to a Rule 59(e) motion.” Roudybush v. Zabel, 813
F.2d 173, 178 (8th Cir. 1987).
The court has reviewed the parties’ extensive briefing on the
transcript from oral argument on those motions, as well as the
briefs and documents submitted for purposes of the present motion.
Based on that review, the court considers Arkwright’s motion to be
nothing more than an attempt to relitigate issues previously
raised, albeit with less force and detail than now presented.
support of the instant motion, Arkwright relies on no new evidence
arguments already made and lost, or to raise new arguments that
could have been raised before.
The court will not grant relief
based on such efforts.
Further, it is not the case, as Arkwright argues, that the
court ignored or did not adequately address its argument that the
injunction, despite submitting three briefs to the court.
No. 19, at 34, ECF No. 27, at 10; see also ECF No. 22 (containing
no argument about the injunction).
Arkwright’s oral argument was
similarly lacking with respect to the injunction issue.
No. 45, at 24-25.
For these reasons, the court denies the motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to amend the
judgment, vacate the injunction, or clarify the injunction [ECF No.
37] is denied.
Dated: August 6, 2015
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?