Olga Despotis Trust v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Remand (ECF No. 144 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on April 18, 2016. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

OLGA DESPOTIS TRUST,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE,
COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:12CV2369 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Remand (ECF No. 144).
This matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition. Plaintiff moves to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant a motion to alter or
amend judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 440
F.3d 930, 933 (8th Cir. 2006). Rule 59(e) motions "serve the limited function of correcting
manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Metro. St. Louis Sewer
Dist., 440 F.3d at 933 (internal quotes omitted). The purpose of Rule 59 is to allow the district

court "the power to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of
judgment." Norman v. Arkansas Dep't ofEduc., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996), quoting White v.
New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982). A Rule 59(e) motion to

alter or amend the judgment must show: "1) an intervening change in controlling law; 2) the
availability of new evidence not available previously; or 3) the need to correct a clear error of law
1

or prevent manifest injustice." Bannister v. Armantrout, 807 F.Supp. 516, 556 (W.D.Mo.1991),
ajj'd, 4 F.3d 1434 (8th Cir.1993).

Importantly, a motion to reconsider "cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and
should, have been made before the trial court entered final judgment." Garner v. Arvin Indus. Inc.,
77 F.3d 255, 258 (8th Cir.1996); see also Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414
(8th Cir.1988) (stating that a Rule 59(e) motion should not "serve as the occasion to tender new
legal theories for the first time")(intemal quotes omitted); Innovative Home Health Care, Inc. v.
P. T-0. T Associates ofthe Black Hills, 141 F.3d 1284, 1286 (8th Cir.1998)(Rule 59(e) "cannot be

used to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise arguments which could have
been offered or raised prior to entry of judgment").
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has not alleged any manifest error of law or fact. Rather, Plaintiff has simply
attempted to "reargue the merits of the case." US , ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., No.
07-1600 ADM/AJB, 2007 WL 4224074, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 27, 2007) (citing Broadway v.
Norris~

193 F.3d 987, 989-990 (8th Cir.1999)). "Rule 59(e) does not afford an opportunity to

rehash or re-frame issues upon which the Court has already ruled." Indiana Lumbermens Ins. Co.
v. PrimeWood, Inc. , No. A3-97-03, 1999 WL 33283337, at *1 (D.N.D. Apr. 9, 1999). "A

'manifest error' is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale
disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Dille v. Renaissance
Hotel Mgmt. Co., LLC, No. 4:10CV1983 TIA, 2012 WL 5866630, at *l (E.D. Mo. Nov. 19, 2012)

(citing Oto v. Metro . Lif Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000)).
Likewise, Plaintiffs motion fails to present any newly discovered evidence or arguments.
"A Rule 59(e) motion is not a vehicle to introduce new evidence, tender new legal theories, or raise
2

arguments that could have been offered or raised before the Court entered judgment." US., ex
rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 2007 WL 4224074, at* 1 (D. Minn. Nov. 27, 2007).

"Thus, Plaintiffs' arguments are not persuasive, and they do not raise any additional issues
that have not already been considered." Dille, 2012 WL 5866630, at *2. Upon review of these
files, the Court finds no "manifest errors of law," and stands on its earlier rulings and reasoning
therein. See ProGrowth Bank, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA., No. CIV. 07-1577DWFAJB, 2007
WL 4322002, at *2 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2007) ("Rule 59(e) motions serve the limited function of
correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.").

According! y,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Remand (ECF No. 144) is
DENIED.

Dated this 18th day of April, 2016.

~c:L~
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3