Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE THE BUTCHER COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF ) ) ) v. ) ) GUY BOUTHOT AND BOUTHOT ) CONSTRUCTION, INC. D/B/A THE ) ODORITE COMPANY, ) DEFENDANTS )

Civil No. 00-139-P-H

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON BUTCHER'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ODORITE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Butcher's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. I will not consider Butcher's new evidence because there is no satisfactory reason for Butcher's failure to present it prior to the Order on Odorite's Motion for Summary Judgment. As stated in that Order, Butcher did not file a Rule 56(f) affidavit requesting additional time to conduct discovery prior to responding to Odorite's motion, nor did it supplement its memoranda after discovery closed. Butcher Co. v. Bouthot, 124 F. Supp. 2d 750, 752-53 (D. Me. 2001). A motion for reconsideration "`does not provide a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures, and it certainly does not allow a party to introduce new evidence or advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to the judgment.'" Hayden v. Grayson, 134 F.3d 449, 455 n.9 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting Aybar v. CrispinReyes, 118 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1997)). Furthermore, I will not reconsider the Order's legal or factual conclusions. I carefully considered them before, and

Butcher has not convinced me that they are incorrect. Odorite's motion for summary judgment on Butcher's remaining false advertising claims is GRANTED. Odorite's statements that its products Looking Good and Powerball are comparable in quality to Butcher's Look

Download DBH_03162001_2-00cv139_BUTCHER_V_ODORITE.pdf

Maine Law