Cascade Capital Group, LLC v. Livingston Holdings, LLC et al
Filing
160
ORDER denying 154 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 154 Motion for New Trial Signed by District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr on 04/08/2020 (Guirola, Louis)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC
PLAINTIFF
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:17cv952-LG-MTP
LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC;
DAVID LANDRUM; and MICHAEL L.
SHARPE
DEFENDANTS
AND
LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and
MICHAEL L. SHARPE
COUNTERCLAIMANTS
v.
CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC
COUNTERDEFENDANT
AND
LIVINGSTON HOLDINGS, LLC;
CHESTNUT DEVELOPERS, LLC; and
MICHAEL L. SHARPE
THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFFS
v.
MARK CALVERT
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT
ORDER DENYING CASCADE CAPITAL GROUP LLC’S MOTION TO
ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT OR MAKE ADDITIONAL FACTUAL
FINDINGS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
BEFORE THE COURT is the [154] Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a) and (e) and/or Make Additional
Findings Pursuant to Rule 52(b) or, in the Alternative, Grant a New Trial Pursuant
to Rule 59(a) filed by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Cascade Capital Group, LLC
(“Cascade”). Defendants/Counterclaimants Livingston Holdings, LLC
(“Livingston”), Chestnut Developers, LLC (“Chestnut”), and Michael L. Sharpe filed
a Response in Opposition, but Cascade did not reply. Having considered the
submissions of the parties, the record, and relevant law, the Court concludes that
Cascade’s Motion should be denied.
On March 6, 2020, the Court entered [151] Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law from a three-day bench trial that was held in September 2019. The Court
also entered a [152] Final Judgment, which, in pertinent part, awarded Cascade
compensatory damages from Defendants Livingston
Holdings, LLC, Chestnut Developers, LLC, and Michael
L. Sharpe, jointly and severally with all parties to the
Promissory Note . . . and the Forbearance Agreement . . .
as amended by the First Amendment to the Forbearance
Agreement, in the amount of $424,329.55 with interest
from the date of judgment at the rate of 6.5% as provided
by the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
On March 16, 2020, Cascade filed the instant Motion, which contends that
this Judgment, along with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law “encompass
and/or rely on multiple manifest errors of both fact and law and/or reflect
prejudicial evidentiary and other errors resulting in the failure of substantial
justice,” such that the Court has “committed clear error.” (Mot. Alter or Amend J. 2,
ECF No. 154.) Cascade expands upon this general claim with additional conclusory
contentions: the Court’s factual findings and legal conclusions
(a) “[r]eflect categorical outcome-determinative factual misunderstandings
and/or unexplained indifference regarding the substance and unequivocal
-2-
consequential import of considerable material, undisputed and/or unchallenged
evidence presented during trial;”
(b) “[m]isplace express and/or implied reliance on speculation, conjecture,
and/or incorporate factual assumptions unsupported by evidence presented during
trial;
(c) “[i]naccurately reflect the substance of the claim and defenses as well as
the various disputes and questions necessarily flowing from the same pending
before and presented to the Court during trial;”
(d) “[r]eveal legal analyses as well as rationales/explanations required by the
pleadings, controlling Agreed Pre-Trial Order, evidence presented at trial, and/or
explicitly raise and advocated via post-trial written submissions and otherwise to be
facially inconsistent, incomplete, and or absent;”
(e) [e]ncompass the (1) dubious interpretation of and/or unexplained
disregard for on-point and/or persuasive authorities reflected in Mississippi law as
applied by Mississippi’s state courts, and/or (2) the unsanctioned effective creation,
modification, and/or expansion of Mississippi law;”
(f) “[f]ashion a remedy and require a result so inequitable as to be
unquestionably punitive in operation, if not express characterization;”
(g) “[e]ffectively award the referenced Defendants a substantial financial
windfall by irrefutably placing them in a position substantially superior to any they
might otherwise have occupied considering any arguably reasonable interpretation
of the material, undisputed evidence presented at trial;” and
-3-
(h) “[a]re otherwise clearly erroneous and manifestly unjust.” (Id. 2-3.)
Cascade does not point to a single factual finding or legal conclusion in the Court’s
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or explain how any such findings or
conclusions were erroneous or manifestly unjust.
A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment.”
Templet v. Hydrochem, Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004). There are three
grounds for altering a judgment under Rule 59(e): (1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Alexander v.
Wells Fargo Bank, 867 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 2017). Rule 59(e) motions are “not
the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could
have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
“Reconsideration of a judgment is an extraordinary remedy that should be used
sparingly.” Id.
“The primary purpose of [Rule 52] is to ensure that the trial court’s findings
of fact and legal reasoning are clear.” Driskell v. Summit Contracting Grp., Inc.,
325 F. Supp. 3d 665, 679 (W.D.N.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Thus, “[a] Rule 52 motion is not to be used to introduce evidence that was available
at trial but not offered, to relitigate old issues or advance new theories, or to secure
a rehearing on the merits.” Weisler v. La. Commerce & Trade Ass’n, No. 1:09CV622
HSO-JMR, 2012 WL 13018502, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 20, 2012) (citing Fontenot v.
Mesa Petro. Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1209 (5th Cir. 1986)). Like Rule 59(e) motions, a
-4-
Rule 52(b) motion is to be used “‘to correct manifest errors of law or fact or, in some
situations, to present newly discovered evidence.’” Id. (quoting Fontenot, 791 F.2d
at 1209).
Cascade asserts that the Court’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are
riddled with manifest errors of law and fact. However, Cascade’s arguments lack
substance or explanation. Cascade has neither pointed to the specific erroneous
portions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law nor “cited to those portions
of the trial transcript which [it] maintains support [its] position.” Wiesler, 2012 WL
13018502, at *2. Instead, in a conclusory fashion Cascade merely recites and
repeats the Rule 59 and Rule 52(b) standards. This is insufficient to support the
extraordinary remedy of a new trial, an amended judgment, or additional factual
findings.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [154] Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(a) and
(e) and/or Make Additional Findings Pursuant to Rule 52(b) or, in the Alternative,
Grant a New Trial Pursuant to Rule 59(a) filed by Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
Cascade Capital Group, LLC is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 8th day of April, 2020.
s/
Louis Guirola, Jr.
LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-5-
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?