Association Casualty Insurance Company v. Major Mart, Inc. et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 8/1/2013. (psk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION ASSOCIATION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY V. PLAINTIFF CAUSE NO.: 1:12CV022-SA-DAS MAJOR MART, INC.; GREGORY SHARP; MITCHELL DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, INC.; and MITCHELL BEVERAGE, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10 DEFENDANTS ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION The Court entered an Order and Memorandum Opinion holding that Association Casualty is contractually obligated to provide a defense for Defendants in the underlying countersuit. Plaintiff has requested that the Court reconsider its Opinion that the “breach of contract” exclusion does not apply. Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to alter or amend a judgment. But reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). And “such a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Id. (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990)). Instead, “a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 863 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted). The Court has reviewed the arguments by Plaintiff on reconsideration and finds these contentions to be the same as argued in the summary judgment record. The Court has considered those arguments and independently researched and reviewed the points put forth by counsel both at the summary judgment stage and at this juncture. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [39] is DENIED. The case is STAYED pending determination of the underlying lawsuit, and the trial date currently set for August 5, 2013, is TERMINATED. SO ORDERED, this the 1st day of August, 2013. /s/ Sharion Aycock_________ U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

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?