Roca-Buigas v. Poisson et al
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 19 MOTION to Modify Judgment as to 18 Final Judgment. (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(glyons, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ROBERTO ROCA-BUIGAS,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
CLUTSH SPORTZ, LLC;
RENALD POISSON
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:13-cv-21S2
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Roberto Roca-Buigas' Motion to Amend and
Modify the Judgment. (Doc. No. 19.)\ Because Mr. Roca-Buigas has not adduced any new
evidence and does not present any legal arguments that the Court has not already considered and
rejected, his Motion must be DENIED.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case arises from a contract dispute between the parties. Defendant Mr. Poisson
solicited an investment of $500,000 from Plaintiff in order to develop a mobile application for
Defendants' gaming system. (Doc. 19 at 1.) Plaintiff contends that the patent for the gaming
system was deposited in a lockbox account as collateral for this investment. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.)
Plaintiff was to be repaid in full on June 1, 2012. (ld.) On this date, Plaintiff received a letter
from Defendants requesting a two-week extension in exchange for a $200,000 penalty. (Id. at 6.)
Plaintiff agreed via email. (/d.) The two-week deadline passed, but Plaintiff did not receive
payment. (Id.) Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, requesting damages of $500,000 for the
I
All docket references are to 4:13-CV-21S2.
1
initial investment, $200,000 for the late penalty, $1.5 million in lost profits, and declaratory
judgment on ownership of the patent. (Id. at 7-8.)
After a hearing, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of
$700,000. (Doc. No. 18.) Plaintiff now moves to amend and modify the judgment, arguing that it
failed to reflect the full relief to which he is entitled. (Id. at 3.)
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e)
must "clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered
evidence." Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting Simon v. United States,
891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks omitted». Such motions "cannot
be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.
Moreover, they cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory." Id. In considering a
motion for reconsideration, a court "must strike the proper balance between two competing
imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts."
Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350,355 (5th Cir. 1993). While a district court has
"considerable discretion" to grant or deny a motion under Rule 59(e), id., the Fifth Circuit
cautions that reconsideration under Rule 59( e) is an extraordinary remedy that courts should use
sparingly. Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004).
III.
DISCUSSION
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' liability was clear based on their failure
to answer his complaint and their concession that they defaulted on the loan. (Doc. No. 19 at 3).
He also states that "[d]amages were clear based on the uncontested tenus of the agreement
2
awarding [P]laintiff repayment of the loan, the rights to the patent, and a royalty interest in its
proceeds." (/d.)
Plaintiirs Motion simply revisits issues this Court has already decided, urging arguments
this Court has already rejected. The Court specifically considered whether Plaintiff was entitled
to damages for lost profits and declaratory judgment on the patent (Doc. No, 16), and found that
he was not so entitled. The argument Plaintiff sets forth in his Motion is insufficient to meet his
burden under Rule 59. The Court therefore DENIES his Motion to Amend and Modify the
Judgment.
,.,f
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on this the
'r:9 day of(?q;2014.
KElT
. ELLISON
UNITED TATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?