Snap One v. AM Rudden et al, No. 2:2022cv00127 - Document 114 (D. Utah 2024)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration no 101 is Denied. Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 04/18/2024. (kpf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Snap One v. AM Rudden et al Doc. 114 _________________________________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH SNAP ONE LLC, Plaintiff, vs. MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Case No. 2:22-CV-127-DAK AM RUDDEN INC., AARON M. RUDDEN, CARRIBEAN ENTERTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., Judge Dale A. Kimball Defendants. CARRIBEAN ENTERTAINMENT TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., Consol. Plaintiff, vs. SNAP ONE, LLC, d/b/a WIREPATH, SNAPAV, and CONTROL, f/k/a WIREPATH HOME SYSTEMS, LLC, Consol. Defendants. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Caribbean Entertainment Technologies, Ltd.’s (“CET”) Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order [ECF No. 101]. The parties have briefed the motion, and the court concludes that oral argument would not significantly aid in its determination of the motion. The court, therefore, enters the following Memorandum Decision and Order based on the parties’ submissions and the law and facts relevant to Plaintiff’s motion. Dockets.Justia.com “A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration is an “inappropriate vehicle to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion. Absent extraordinary circumstances, . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed.” Servants of the Paracletes v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). “It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of the Paracletes, 204 F.3d at 1012. A Rule 59(e) motion must be made upon grounds other than a mere disagreement with the court’s decision and must do more than rehash a party’s former arguments that were rejected by the court. Plaintiff has not attempted to meet any of these standards. Plaintiff merely re-argues its prior positions. Plaintiff has not advanced any new arguments that were not available to it previously that would change the outcome. Plaintiff cites to no intervening change in controlling law or new evidence that warrants reconsideration of the prior order. Therefore, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion lacks merit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 101] is DENIED. DATED this 18th day of April 2024. BY THE COURT: __________________________________ DALE A. KIMBALL, 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.
