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, )

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

Dockets.Justia.com

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