Del Webb Communities Inc et al v. Carlson et al
ORDER denying 115 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Patrick Michael Duffy on February 22, 2017.(jmcg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Del Webb Communities, Inc.
and PulteGroup, Inc.,
Roger F. Carlson and Mary Jo Carlson,
C.A. No.: 9:14-cv-1877-PMD
This matter is before the Court on Defendants/Respondents Roger F. Carlson and Mary
Jo Carlson’s motion to reconsider the Court’s February 1 order (ECF No. 115). For the reasons
set forth herein, the Carlsons’ motion is denied.
The Carlsons’ motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure recites the same arguments set forth in the Carlsons’ original briefs. The Carlsons
have not shown an intervening change in the controlling law, new evidence that was not
available at the time of the Court’s order, or that there has been a clear error of law or a manifest
injustice. See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp., LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 407 (4th Cir. 2010). As a
result, the Carlsons’ motion to reconsider must be denied. See Hartsock v. Goodyear Dunlop
Tires N. Am. Ltd., No. 2:13-cv-419-PMD, 2014 WL 11022098, at *1 (D.S.C. June 16, 2014) (“A
motion for reconsideration . . . ‘is not an opportunity to rehash issues already ruled upon because
a litigant is displeased with the result.’” (quoting Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Double Down
Entm’t, LLC, No. 0:11-cv-2438-MBS, 2012 WL 6210344, at *2 (D.S.C. Dec. 13, 2012))).
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the Carlsons’ motion to reconsider is
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 22, 2017
Charleston, South Carolina
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?