Johnson v. MI Windows and Doors Inc

Filing 163

ORDER denying 159 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 12/21/12. (juwo, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
IN RE: MI WINDOWS AND DOORS,
INC. PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION

)
)
)
)

NADINE JOHNSON, JENNIFER C.
ZAMBRICZKI, and DAVID R. VAN
SUCH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
vs.
MI WINDOWS AND DOORS, INC.
Defendant.

MDL No. 2333
No. 2:12-mn-00001-DCN

No. 2:11-cv-00167-DCN

ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion for reconsideration brought by
defendant MI Windows and Doors, Inc. (MIWD). MIWD asks the court to reconsider or
alter and amend its previous order denying a motion for joinder. For the reasons set forth
below, the court denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
This case was filed on October 21, 2010. One year later, MIWD brought a third
party complaint against Lakes of Summerville, LLC (Lakes of Summerville) and other
parties. The court issued an order on March 23, 2012 granting a motion to sever brought
by the third party defendants. Lakes of Summerville brought a separate action against
MIWD on May 17, 2012. MIWD filed a motion for joinder of Lakes of Summerville in
this case on July 26, 2012. The court denied the motion for joinder on November 6,
2012.
1

II. STANDARD
MIWD has filed a timely motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days
after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). In general, “reconsideration of a
judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998). “[A]
motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to rehash issues already ruled upon
because a litigant is displeased with the result.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Double
Down Entm’t, LLC, No. 11-2438, 2012 WL 6210334, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2012). Nor
is a motion for reconsideration the appropriate medium to “raise arguments which could
have been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, [or] . . . to argue a case under a
novel legal theory that the party had the ability to address in the first instance.” Pacific
Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.
The Fourth Circuit recognizes three grounds for altering or amending a judgment:
(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 id. (citing EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d 110, 112 (4th Cir.
1997)). These standards are “not applied with the same force when analyzing an
interlocutory order.” Beyond Sys., Inc. v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 08-409, 2010 WL
3059344, at *2 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2010) (citing Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc.,
326 F.3d 505, 514 (4th Cir. 2003)).
III. DISCUSSION
In its previous order denying MIWD’s motion for joinder, the court ruled that
Lakes of Summerville is not a real party in interest under Rule 17 because the legal issues

2

in this case, Johnson v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc., and another case in this MDL, Lakes
of Summerville, LLC v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc., are sufficiently distinct. The court
additionally held that joinder is not required under Rule 19 for five reasons: (1) complete
relief can be afforded to plaintiffs without the addition of Lakes of Summerville as a
party; (2) disposing of this action will not impede Lakes of Summerville’s ability to
protect its interests; (3) disposing of this action will not leave MIWD with inconsistent
obligations; (4) joinder “would appear to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction”;
and (5) joinder could potentially lead to future conflicts of interest.
Here, MIWD first complains that the court “did not address MIWD’s argument
that failure to join Lakes may leave MIWD subject to a substantial risk of incurring
double obligations.” Mot. Recons. 1. Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) states that a party must be
joined if, inter alia, it claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
situated that disposing of the action in its absence may “leave an existing party subject to
a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.”
The court already ruled that at this time, there is not a substantial likelihood MIWD will
be subject to “inconsistent obligations.” This statement was meant to implicitly include a
finding that at this time, there is not a substantial likelihood MIWD will be subject to
double obligations.
At any rate, the “inquiry contemplated by Rule 19 is a practical one . . . addressed
to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Coastal Modular Corp. v. Laminators, Inc.,
635 F.2d 1102, 1108 (4th Cir. 1980). “Under Rule 19(a), the risk of being subject to
multiple obligations must be real; an unsubstantiated or speculative risk will not suffice.”
Diaz Contracting, Inc. v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., No. 88-9203, 1991 WL 53663, at *6

3

(E.D. Pa. Apr. 2, 1991). This court already ruled in Lakes of Summerville, LLC v. MI
Windows & Doors, Inc., No. 12-1297, 2012 WL 5384922, at *3 (D.S.C. Nov. 1, 2012),
that “Lakes of Summerville cannot stand in the shoes of the homeowners, who now own
the allegedly defective windows, and assert claims in negligence and strict liability for
economic losses to the windows themselves or adjoining finishes, walls, and other
property in the homes.” In addition, Lakes of Summerville’s claims for breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment are based on different factual scenarios than those
alleged in this case. Because MIWD asserts a speculative rather than substantial
likelihood of double obligations, joinder is not required.
Second, MIWD complains that the “record lacks evidentiary support for the
statement on page 14 of the Order that ‘joinder would appear to divest the court of
subject matter jurisdiction.’” Mot. Recons. 1. In its memoranda in support of its motion
for joinder, MIWD’s sole arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction were the
conclusory statements that “joinder will not deprive the Court of subject matter
jurisdiction” and “[t]here is no question in this case that Lakes of Summerville is subject
to the jurisdiction of this Court and can be joined without defeating diversity
jurisdiction.” Dkt. No. 133-1 at 8; Dkt. No. 138 at 5. MIWD, which bears the burden of
proving that joinder is required, had the opportunity to fully brief this issue before the
court issued its ruling, but chose not to do so. See Frietsch v. Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825,
828 (7th Cir. 1995) (“It is not the purpose of allowing motions for reconsideration to
enable a party to complete presenting his case after the court has ruled against him. Were
such a procedure to be countenanced, some lawsuits really might never end, rather than
just seeming endless.”). In its order, the court simply stated that joinder “would appear

4

to divest the court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Johnson v. MI Windows & Doors, Inc.,
No. 11-167, 2012 WL 5408563, at *7 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2012) (emphasis added). In
making that statement, the court was relying on arguments made at the hearing on the
motion for joinder and simply providing an ancillary reason why joinder is not required
under Rule 19. See Hr’g Tr., Sept. 20, 2012, 17:16-18:1 (statement by counsel for
plaintiffs that “Lakes is a South Carolina LLC” and “the risk to diversity [jurisdiction]
itself would give the Court a reason not to join Lakes”). The court finds no clear error of
law or manifest injustice necessitating an amendment of the previous order.
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the court DENIES defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________
DAVID C. NORTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

December 21, 2012
Charleston, South Carolina

5