I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al

Filing 884

ORDER denying 835 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment under Rule 52(b) and a New Trial under Rule 59 on Laches. Signed by District Judge Raymond A. Jackson and filed on 1/31/13. (mwin, )

FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division

I/P ENGINE, INC.,

JAN 3 1 2013
CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT
NORFOLK, VA

Plaintiff,
V.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:llcv512

AOL INC.,*?/a/.,
Defendants.
ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment under Rule 52(b) and a New Trial
under Rule 59 on Laches (ECF No. 835). Rule 52(b) dictates that "[o]n a party's motion filed no

later than 28 days after the entry ofjudgment, the court may amend its findings—or make

additional findings-and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a
motion for a new trial under Rule 59." As courts have noted, "[a]mong the purposes of such a
motion is to correct manifest errors of law or fact." Morrow Corp. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co.,

110 F. Supp. 2d 441,445 (E.D. Va. 2000). Furthermore, "[t]he purpose of Rule 52(b) is to allow
a court to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or in limited circumstances, to present newly
discovered evidence, but not to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a

rehearing on the merits." U.S. v. Mathis, No. 6:06-815, 2008 WL 906554, *1 (D.S.C., 2008).

Having reviewed the briefing by the parties, the Court finds no manifest errors of law or fact to
correct which would change its finding on laches. As a result, Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment
under Rule 52(b) and a New Trial under Rule 59 on Laches (ECF No. 835) is DENIED. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to counsel and parties of record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Norfolk, Virginia

January 21, 2013
f

y ^7ST ___
Raymond A. Jackson

United States District Judge