Domain Protection LLC v. Sea Wasp LLC et al, No. 4:2018cv00792 - Document 426 (E.D. Tex. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff Domain Protection LLC's Motion to Modify Judgment (Dkt. # 412 ) is hereby DENIED. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 7/13/2020. (rpc, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Domain Protection LLC v. Sea Wasp LLC et al Doc. 426 Case 4:18-cv-00792-ALM Document 426 Filed 07/13/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 13544 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION DOMAIN PROTECTION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SEA WASP, LLC, ET. AL. Defendants. § § § § § § Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-792 Judge Mazzant MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Domain Protection LLC’s Motion to Modify Judgment (Dkt. #412). Having considered the motion and the relevant pleadings, the Court finds that Domain Protection’s Motion is DENIED. Motions to reconsider serve a very limited purpose: “to permit a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact, or to present newly discovered evidence.” Krim v. pcOrder.com, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 329, 331 (W.D. Tex. 2002) (citations omitted). Mere disagreement with a district court’s order does not warrant reconsideration of that order. Id. at 332. A party should not restate, recycle, or rehash arguments that were previously made. Id. District court opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.” Verdin v. Fed. Nat’l. Mortg. Ass’n, No. 4:10-cv-590, 2012 WL 2803751, at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 10, 2012) (citations omitted). The Court already considered Domain Protection’s argument and found it unpersuasive. The Court’s preliminary injunction ordered Sea Wasp to undo any changes to the Domain Names’ nameserver records. This meant that Sea Wasp was ordered to return any converted Domain Names to Domain Protection. Sea Wasp complied with that mandate.1 Domain Protection’s request is accordingly denied. As the Court previously stated, “should Sea Wasp reinstitute an executive lock on the Domain Names in an impermissible manner, Domain Protection will be well within its right to file a new action seeking another injunction” (Dkt. #402) 1 Dockets.Justia.com . Case 4:18-cv-00792-ALM Document 426 Filed 07/13/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13545 It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Domain Protection LLC’s Motion to Modify Judgment (Dkt. #412) is hereby DENIED. SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2020. ___________________________________ AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
