National Fitness Center, Inc et al v. Atlanta Fitness, Inc et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 52 Defendant/Counter-Claimant Atlanta Fitness, Inc. d/b/a Custom Built Personal Training and Stephen Dow's Motion for Reconsideration re 49 Order. Signed by District Judge Tena Campbell on November 9, 2012. (AYB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE

NATIONAL FITNESS CENTER, INC.,
and COURT SOUTH TOTAL
CONDITIONING CLUBS, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
No. 3:09-cv-133
vs.

(Campbell/Shirley)

ATLANTA FITNESS d/b/a CUSTOM
BUILT PERSONAL FITNESS, and
STEPHEN DOW, individually,
Defendants.

ORDER
Defendants/Counter-Claimants Atlanta Fitness, Inc. d/b/a Custom Built Personal Training
and Stephen Dow (collectively “Custom Built”), have moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for reconsideration of this court’s October 10, 2012 Order (Docket No.
49). In the Order, the court granted in part and denied in part Custom Built’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Custom Built asks this court to reconsider the portion of the ruling
regarding the parties’ competing breach of contract claims and Custom Built’s promissory fraud
claim.
A motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) “may be granted if there is a
clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an intervening change in controlling law, or to

prevent manifest injustice.” GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th
Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Custom Built contends that the court committed clear error of law
by holding that the last sentence of Paragraph 13 in the Agreement was inconsistent with Custom
Built’s exclusive right to sell personal training sessions, and by holding that because the
ambiguity could not be resolved by the parole evidence, the issue must be decided by a jury.
The court has reviewed the motion for reconsideration, along with all relevant pleadings
and supporting papers, and has reviewed its October 10, 2012 Order. Based on that review, the
court finds, once again, that the Agreement is ambiguous for the reasons stated in the original
order and that the evidence cited by Custom Built in its pleadings supporting its motion to
reconsider does not clear up the ambiguity. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 9th day of November, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

TENA CAMPBELL
U.S. District Court Judge

2