Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Company
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 751 MOTION to Alter Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment filed by Thomas J Shaw, Retractable Technologies, Inc.. Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #751) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/27/2017. (cm, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and THOMAS J SHAW
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY
Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-00016
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #751).
After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.
On August 17, 2017, the Court rendered final judgment and dismissed this case
(Dkt. #750). Twenty-eight days later, on September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the present motion
to alter the judgment (Dkt. #751). On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed a response (Dkt. #754).
On October 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a reply (Dkt. #755).
A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v.
HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In Re Transtexas Gas. Corp.,
303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an
extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. at 479 (citing Clancy v. Emp’rs Health
Ins. Co., 101 F. Supp. 2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)). In the Fifth Circuit, Rule 59(e) standards
“favor the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v.
Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Under Rule 59(e), amending
a judgment is appropriate (1) where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law;
(2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3)
where there has been a manifest error of law or fact.
Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc.,
702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567
(5th Cir. 2003)). A motion under Rule 59 cannot be used to raise arguments or claims “that could,
and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Id. (citing Marseilles Homeowners
Condo. Ass’n v. Fid. Nat. Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008)).
Plaintiffs have not shown manifest errors of law or newly discovered evidence. Templet,
367 F.3d at 478-49. They have not shown (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law
or prevent manifest injustice. In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiffs have simply failed to show they are entitled to the extraordinary relief provided for in
Rule 59(e). Templet, 367 F.3d at 478.
Instead, Plaintiffs merely rehash arguments that could have been offered or raised before
the judgment was issued. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). As such, the Court
finds that its original decision should stand.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment
(Dkt. #751) is DENIED.
SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2017.
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?