Monster Daddy LLC v. Monster Cable Products Inc

Filing 401

ORDER denying 389 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 389 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Honorable Mary G Lewis on 12/6/13.(alew, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION

MONSTER DADDY, LLC
Plaintiff,
v.
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,
MONSTER, LLC, and WEST COAST
CUSTOMS, INC.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
MONSTER CABLE PRODUCTS, INC.,
Counterclaimant,
v.
MONSTER DADDY, LLC
Counterdefendant.
__________________________________

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

Civil Action No.: 6:10-1170-MGL

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion To Reconsider and for New Trial, (Doc. #
389), filed on October 28, 2013 by Monster Daddy, LLC (“Plaintiff”). The motion is made pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and asks the Court to reconsider its September 30, 2013 Order
granting judgment to Monster Cable, LLC, Monster, LLC, and West Coast Custom, LLC (collectively,
“Defendants”). (Docs. # 377 and # 378). The Defendants filed a Response in Opposition on November
15, 2013, (Doc. # 398), to which Plaintiff replied. (Doc. # 399). On December 3, 2013, the Court held

a hearing on the Motion. The matter is now ripe for decision.
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[a]ny motion to alter or amend
a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Although Rule 59(e) does not
itself provide a standard under which a District Court may grant a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized three grounds for amending an earlier 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. Pacific Ins. Co. v. American
National Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396,403 (4th Cir. 1998) cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1104 (1999). Thus, Rule
59(e) permits a District Court to correct its own errors, “sparing the parties and the appellate courts the
burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.” Id. (citing Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors
Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir. 1995)).
Rule 59(e) motions may not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have been raised
prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may they be used to argue a case under a novel legal theory that
the party had the ability to address in the first instance. Id. In general, reconsideration of a judgment after
its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly. Id.
Here Plaintiff attempts to proceed under prong three (3) above, arguing that the Court made clear
errors of law in denying Plaintiff’s infringement claims and in ordering cancellation of Plaintiff’s new
monster mark. However, after reviewing the parties’ briefs and considering the arguments advanced by
counsel at the hearing, the Court does not conclude that Plaintiff has established that any portion of the

-2-

Court’s Order of September 30, 2013, is grounded in a clear error of law such that reconsideration is
warranted. The Court finds that there is no basis under Rule 59(e) to modify its judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion To Reconsider and for New Trial1 is DENIED.
(Doc. # 389).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Mary G. Lewis
United States District Judge
December 6, 2013
Spartanburg, South Carolina

1

Although Plaintiff’s M otion is captioned as a “M otion to Reconsider and for New Trial,” (Doc. # 389),
Plaintiff does not cite the legal standard governing grants of new trials or otherwise advance an argument for a new
trial in its papers. To the extent that Plaintiff, through the caption of its motion, is moving for or requesting a new
trial, that motion is likewise denied.

-3-