Rule 59(e) Motion to Amend Judgment — Standards
From Duckett v. United States, (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3754 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2011):
The grounds for granting relief from a judgment under Rule 59(e) " include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice." See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997).***
[Footnote 3] The Court recognizes its authority to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) is broad; the rule "invests the district court with the power to amend the judgment for any reason." See Morganroth & Morganroth v. DeLorean, 213 F.3d 1301, 1313 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Brown v. Presbyterian Healthcare Serv., 101 F.3d 1324, 1332 (10th Cir. 1996). ***
A Rule 59(e) motion "is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing."
From Hobbs v. Legg Mason Inv. Counsel & Trust Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7168 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 25, 2011):
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) grants the Court the power to alter or amend its judgment. That Rule "serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence and is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment." Knight v. Kellogg Brown & Root Inc., 333 F. App'x 1, 8 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478-79 (5th Cir. 2004)) (punctuation omitted); see also Nationalist Movement v. Town of Jena, 321 F. App'x 359, 364 (5th Cir. 2009) ("Motions for reconsideration should not be used to raise arguments that could have been made before the entry of judgment or to re-urge matters that have already been advanced by a party.") (citing Waltman v. Int'l Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 473-74 (5th Cir. 1989)).
The federal courts of this state recognize three potential grounds for the Court to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e): "(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." [Citations omitted.] Granting a motion for reconsideration, however, is "an extraordinary remedy and should be used sparingly." In re Pequeno, 240 Fed. Appx. 634, 636 (5th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Share this article: