Markel American Insurance Company v. Piggie Park Enterprises Inc et al

Filing 86

ORDER denying 85 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 08/18/2010.(bshr, )

Download PDF
M a r k e l American Insurance Company v. Piggie Park Enterprises Inc et al D o c . 86 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION M a rk e l American Insurance Company, ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) P ig g ie Park Enterprises, Inc. dba Piggie ) P a rk Drive-In Restaurants, Maurice ) B e s s in g e r, Jackson W. Padgett, Tammy ) D . Bagley, Anthony E. Attaway, and ) E liza b e th Wyatt, ) ) D e f e n d a n ts . ) ________________________________ ) C / A No.: 3:09-1631-JFA ORDER T h is matter is before the Court on Defendant and Cross-Claimant Anthony Attaway's " m o tio n to alter or amend judgment." M o tio n s under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: "[R]econsideration of a previous o rd e r is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and c o n se rv a tio n of judicial resources." 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice 59.30[4] (3d ed.). The Fourth Circuit has held such a motion should be granted for only th re e reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of new e v id e n c e; or (3) "to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Hutchinson v . Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993) (emphasis added). "Rule 59(e) permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise a rg u m e n ts or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." E x x o n Shipping Co. v. Baker, __U.S.__, 128 S. Ct. 2605, n.5 (2008) (internal citation omitted). "Mere disagreement [with a court's ruling] does not support a Rule 59(e) motion." U .S . ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002) (in te rn a l citation omitted). Having reviewed the pleadings related to this motion, the Court finds oral argument w o u ld not aid in its decision-making process. In the view of this Court, the motion presents n eith er new controlling law, nor new evidence, nor points out a clear legal error of this Court -- the motion is basically an attempt to reargue issues already fully briefed and decided by th is Court. The Court understands that Defendant and Cross-Claimant Anthony Attaway may d isag ree with this Court's ruling. Nevertheless, an appeal to the Fourth Circuit after entry o f judgment is the proper method for seeking review of the aggrieving ruling. F o r the above reasons, the motion to alter or amend the judgment is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. A u g u st 18, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States 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?