Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Company, No. 2:2008cv00016 - Document 757 (E.D. Tex. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 751 MOTION to Alter Judgment Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment filed by Thomas J Shaw, Retractable Technologies, Inc.. Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #751) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 10/27/2017. (cm, )
Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Company Doc. 757 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and THOMAS J SHAW v. BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-00016 Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #751). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. BACKGROUND On August 17, 2017, the Court rendered final judgment and dismissed this case (Dkt. #750). Twenty-eight days later, on September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the present motion to alter the judgment (Dkt. #751). On September 29, 2017, Defendant filed a response (Dkt. #754). On October 3, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a reply (Dkt. #755). LEGAL STANDARD A Rule 59(e) motion “calls into question the correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting In Re Transtexas Gas. Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)). “Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should be used sparingly.” Id. at 479 (citing Clancy v. Emp’rs Health Ins. Co., 101 F. Supp. 2d 463, 465 (E.D. La. 2000)). In the Fifth Circuit, Rule 59(e) standards “favor the denial of motions to alter or amend a judgment.” S. Constructors Grp., Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Under Rule 59(e), amending a judgment is appropriate (1) where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; Dockets.Justia.com (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was previously unavailable; or (3) where there has been a manifest error of law or fact. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)). A motion under Rule 59 cannot be used to raise arguments or claims “that could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued.” Id. (citing Marseilles Homeowners Condo. Ass’n v. Fid. Nat. Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008)). ANALYSIS Plaintiffs have not shown manifest errors of law or newly discovered evidence. Templet, 367 F.3d at 478-49. They have not shown (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. In re Benjamin Moore & Co., 318 F.3d 626, 629 (5th Cir. 2002). Plaintiffs have simply failed to show they are entitled to the extraordinary relief provided for in Rule 59(e). Templet, 367 F.3d at 478. Instead, Plaintiffs merely rehash arguments that could have been offered or raised before the judgment was issued. Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 763 (5th Cir. 2005). As such, the Court . finds that its original decision should stand. CONCLUSION It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Dkt. #751) is DENIED. SIGNED this 27th day of October, 2017. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT 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
Terms of Service