Russell et al v. McGrath et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 42 MOTION to Alter 41 Judgment. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 10/14/2015.(bshr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
CECILE
RUSSELL,
as
Personal
Representative of the Estate of Kelsey
Harris, deceased; WILLIAM P. PIPP, as
Personal Representative of the Estate of
Melinda Sue Pipp, deceased; and WENDY
S. FUESS, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Billings S. Fuess, IV,
deceased,

C/A No. 3:15-cv-00713-JFA

Plaintiffs,
vs.
ORDER
Evelyn
McGrath
as
Personal
Representative of the Estate of BRIAN M.
McGRATH and LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (ECF
No. 42) under Rule 59, Fed. R. Civ. P. Motions under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly:
“[R]econsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation 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 three reasons: (1) to follow an intervening change in controlling law; (2) on account of
new evidence; 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 motions “may not be used
to make arguments that could have been made before the judgment was entered.” Hill v. Braxton,
1

277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir. 2002). Nor are they opportunities to rehash issues already ruled upon
because a litigant is displeased with the result. See Tran v. Tran, 166 F. Supp. 2d 793, 798
(S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Having reviewed the pleadings related to this motion, the Court finds oral argument would
not aid in its decision-making process. In the view of this Court, the motion presents neither 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 this Court. The Court
understands that Plaintiffs’ may disagree with this Court’s ruling. Nevertheless, an appeal to the
Fourth Circuit after entry of judgment is the proper method for seeking review of the aggrieving
ruling.
For the above reasons, the motion to alter or amend the judgment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 14, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr.
United States District Judge

2