Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION JPS Elastometrics Corporation and JPS Industries, Inc., Plaintiffs, vs. Jones Day, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 6:11-02960-TMC

OPINION & ORDER

Plaintiffs, JPS Elastometrics Corporation and JPS Industries, Inc., (collectively "JPS") move this court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52 and 59(e), to alter or amend its March 12, 2013, order denying JPS's motion to amend its complaint (ECF No. 136). (ECF No. 137.) JPS supports its motion on three grounds: (1) the court committed a clear error of law in holding that JPS failed to satisfy the good cause standard for amending a scheduling order; (2) the court committed a clear error of law in holding that Jones Day would be prejudiced by the amendment; and (3) Jones Day misled the court regarding a material fact on which the court based its order. JPS also requests oral argument. Jones Day opposes the motion, characterizing it as an "improper attempt to rehash arguments thoroughly briefed and argued by the parties, and carefully considered by the Court." (ECF No. 140.) I. Legal Standard The court may grant relief under Rule 59(e): "(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Pacific Ins. Co. v. American Nat. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, at 403 (4th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, a movant must show more than "mere

disagreement" with the court's order to succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion. Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1082 (4th Cir. 1993). In addition, a movant may not use a Rule 59(e) motion to "relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

Download 21750.pdf

South Carolina Law