UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MALIK et al, No. 1:2012cv01234 - Document 54 (D.D.C. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: Defendants 52 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment; Having carefully considered Defendants Motion, Plaintiffs Opposition, and all of the evidence submitted therewith, the Court DENIES Defendants Motion. Signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on 10/2/2013. (tcb)

Download PDF

SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 12-cv-1234 (RLW) ISHTIAQ A. MALIK, M.D., et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Defendants Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Dkt. 52), seeking to set aside the Court s final order granting Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 47). Having carefully considered Defendants Motion, Plaintiffs Opposition, and all of the evidence submitted therewith, the Court DENIES Defendants Motion. Defendants seek relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). A Rule 59(e) motion is discretionary and need not be granted unless the district court finds that there is an intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Dyson v. District of Columbia., 710 F.3d 415, 420 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Defendants motion argues that (1) the evidence does not support the Court s finding that Defendants acted with reckless disregard, and (2) awarding damages based on claims submitted from 2006 through 2010 is improper (Dkt. 52 at 8). SUMMARY OPINION AND ORDER; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS Defendants first argument was previously raised before this Court and therefore is not a basis for granting relief from judgment. See, e.g., SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 915 F. Supp. 2d 69, 72 (D.D.C. 2013) ( A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is not simply an opportunity to reargue facts and theories upon which a court has already ruled. ) (internal quotation marks omitted). Defendants second argument is not timely because it was raised for the first time in Defendants Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. District of Columbia v. Doe, 611 F.3d 888, 896 (D.C. Cir. 2010) ( It is well settled that an issue presented for the first time in a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) generally is not timely raised. ). Although the Court has discretion to consider Defendants untimely argument, Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2013), the Court declines to exercise its discretion, particularly because the Court provided Defendants the opportunity to submit any objections to the Court s provisional grant of Plaintiffs Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants declined this invitation (Dkt. 45). For these reasons, Defendants motion is hereby denied. This is a final appealable order. SO ORDERED. Date: October 2, 2013 Digitally signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins DN: cn=Judge Robert L. Wilkins, o=U.S. District Court, ou=Chambers of Honorable Robert L. Wilkins, email=RW@dc.uscourt.gov, c=US Date: 2013.10.02 16:24:03 -04'00' ROBERT L. WILKINS United States District Judge

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.