United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division
K. DuBOSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Rule 59
motion to amend the December 19, 2019 judgment (Doc. 128).
Southern Light, LLC and Uniti Fiber Holdings, Inc. seek for
the judgment to be amended to include Plaintiffs Boihem
Investment Company, LLC, and J&L, LLC; and to reflect the
jury's counterclaim verdict in favor of Southern Light.
Specifically, Defendants propose the following amended
In accordance with the Court's dismissal of all claims of
Plaintiffs Boihem Investment Company, LLC, and J&L, LLC,
on December 12, 2019 at the commencement of the trial (as
reflected in the Court's subsequent order on December 17,
2019, (doc. 126)), and in accordance with the jury verdict
issued on December 16, 2019, (doc. 127 Attachment
“A”) it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of the Defendants Southern
Light, LLC and Uniti Fiber Holdings, Inc., and against
Plaintiffs Harbor Communications, LLC, Boihem Investment
Company, LLC, and J&L, LLC, such that all claims of all
Plaintiffs against the Defendants Southern Light, LLC and
Uniti Fiber Holdings, Inc., are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Further, in accordance with the jury verdict issued on
December 16, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of Southern Light,
LLC on its counterclaim against Harbor Communications, LLC,
in the amount of $74, 385.00, for which let execution issue.
Costs shall be taxed, if any be taxed, in accordance with
FRCP 54 and Civil L.R. 54.
(Doc. 129 at 2-3).
Eleventh Circuit has summarized the limited scope of relief
available under Rule 59(e):
“The only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are
newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or
fact.” In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119
(11th Cir. 1999). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion [cannot be
used] to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of
judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005).
Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir.
2007). See also Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l,
Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010)
(“Reconsidering the merits of a judgment, absent a
manifest error of law or fact, is not the purpose of Rule
59”); Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442
(11th Cir. 1998) (“The purpose of a Rule 59(e) motion
is not to raise an argument that was previously available,
but not pressed”). “The extremely limited
nature of the Rule 59(e) remedy cannot be
overstated…[t]he losing party must do more than show
that a grant of the motion might have been warranted; he must
demonstrate a justification for relief so compelling that the
court was required to grant the motion. Maradiaga v.
United States, 679 F.3d 1286, 1291 (11th Cir.
2012) (citations and internal marks omitted).” Lee
v. Thomas…2012 WL 3137901, *2 at note 1 (S.D.
Ala. Aug. 1, 2012).
Defendants do not assert manifest error of law or fact or
newly discovered evidence as grounds for the amended
judgment, and do not specifically cite Rule 59(e), only Rule
59 generally. Moreover, the Court finds that the relief
actually sought by Defendants is more akin to a Rule 60(a)
motion to correct the judgment due to a clerical oversight or
omission -- to essentially amend the judgment to clarify the
full details of the jury's verdict. Rule 60(a) provides
in relevant part:
(a) Corrections Based on Clerical Mistakes;
Oversights and Omissions. The court may correct a
clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or
omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other
part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its
own, with or without notice....
Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). As such, the Court reconstrues
Defendants' motion as a Rule 60(a) motion to correct the
judgment to fully reflect the entirety of jury's verdict.
Defendants' request that judgment be entered in their
favor and against not only Plaintiff Harbor Communications,
LLC, but also Boihem Investment Company, LLC, and J&L,
LLC, lacks merit. Former plaintiffs Boihem and J&L were
dismissed as party-plaintiffs at the outset of trial -- i.e.,
during the trial no evidence or arguments were presented with
regard to these plaintiffs and/or any claims by said
plaintiffs against the Defendants. As such, there was no
verdict rendered by the jury as to Boihem and J&L. Any
judgment incorporating them would thus be improper. Thus,
Defendants' motion is DENIED as to this
Defendants seek for an amended judgment to include the
jury's verdict rendered in favor of Defendant Southern
Light, LLC on its counterclaim against Plaintiff Harbor
Communications, LLC, in the amount of $74, 385.00; and to
note that costs shall be taxed, if any be taxed, in
accordance Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 54 and the SDAL Local Rules.
Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Defendants'
request and thus, Defendants' motion is
GRANTED as to same.
ORDERED that Defendants' motion is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part as detailed supra, and that an Amended Judgment
shall issue in ...