Phillips Capital, Inc. v. Crestview LLC, No. 12-11295 (11th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-11295 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00455-WS-CJK PHILLIPS CAPITAL, INC., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRESTVIEW LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida _________________________ (October 23, 2012) Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Phillips Capital, Inc. ( Phillips Capital ), appeals the district court s denial of its motion to alter or amend the judgment following the district court s grant of Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 2 of 4 Crestview LLC s ( Crestview ) motion for summary judgment. We affirm. Phillips Capital sued Crestview seeking declaratory and injunctive relief based on rights and obligations set forth in a Voting Trust Agreement ( Agreement ). The district court bifurcated the proceedings,1 suspended discovery, and instructed both parties to file motions for summary judgment directed only to the issue of law regarding the rights and obligations of the parties to the Voting Trust Agreement. Dkt. 59 at 2. The district court granted Crestview s motion for summary judgment on this issue and dismissed the case with prejudice. The district court concluded that, [c]ontrary to the assertions of Phillips Capital, the Agreement does not require Crestview to act in Phillips Capital s best interests. Dkt. 76 at 6. Phillips Capital filed a motion to alter or amend the district court s Order, which the district court denied. Phillips Capital appeals. We review the district court s denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment for an abuse of discretion. Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 507 (11th Cir. 1996). In its motion to alter or amend, Phillips Capital first sought to reopen the case to permit the amendment of pleadings based on additional acts or omissions 1 The district court bifurcated the proceedings between liability (whether Phillips Capital was entitled to any relief under the Agreement) and damages. 2 Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 3 of 4 not originally alleged in the complaint. Phillips Capital only sought this motion to add claims against Crestview for gross negligence, intentional misconduct, a breach of the agreement, and a knowing violation of the law after the district court granted Crestview s summary judgment motion and noted that the express provisions of the Agreement state that [n]either the Trustee nor any Related Person shall be liable, responsible or accountable . . . . except [for] Damages resulting from acts or omissions of such Related Person which were taken or omitted in bad faith or constituted gross negligence, intentional misconduct, a breach of this Agreement or a knowing violation of the law. Dkt. 76 at 7. But Phillips Capital may not raise these additional claims in a motion to alter or amend, especially where there is no allegation that any of these claims were not available or could not be raised prior to summary judgment.2 See In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a party cannot use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment ). Phillips Capital also sought clarification of the district court s ruling and 2 For the same reasons, Phillips Capital is not entitled to further relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2202. 3 Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 4 of 4 asks this Court to clarify the preclusive effect on future litigation based on acts or omissions committed after the filing of the complaint. But this Court declines to speculate as to what additional lawsuits (if any) may be filed in the future and what preclusive effect the district court s grant of summary judgment on these claims will have on any future litigation. AFFIRMED. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.