Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Marshall Tucker Band Inc. v. M T Industries Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division

April 25, 2017

THE MARSHALL TUCKER BAND, INC. and DOUG GRAY, Plaintiffs,
v.
M T INDUSTRIES, INC. and RON RAINEY, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' RULE 59(e) MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

          MARY GEIGER LEWIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Court's Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss (Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion). The Court has jurisdiction over the matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Having carefully considered Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion, the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On March 1, 2017, this Court entered an Order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss. ECF No. 75. The Court first dismissed Plaintiffs' federal trademark infringement claim because Plaintiffs failed to establish Defendant M T Industries, Inc.'s (MTI) use of The Marshall Tucker Band mark (Mark) in commerce. Id. at 7. The Court likewise held Plaintiffs' federal trademark dilution claim failed as a matter of law because Plaintiffs' allegations in their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) were insufficient to plead a use in commerce as required under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). Id. at 8. In light of the fact the Court dismissed the only claims providing independent jurisdiction over the action, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' federal declaratory judgment and federal trademark cancellation claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 8-9. Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Id. at 10. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' federal claims with prejudice and Plaintiffs' state law claims without prejudice. Id. at 11.

         Plaintiffs subsequently filed their motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the Court's Order. ECF No. 78. Defendants filed their response in opposition, ECF No. 82, and Plaintiffs filed their reply, ECF No. 83. The Court, having been fully briefed on the relevant issues, is now prepared to discuss the merits of Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         There are only three limited bases for a district court to grant a Rule 59(e) motion:"(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." Hutchinson v. Staton, 994 F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir.1993). A Rule 59(e) motion"may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 486 n.5 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further,"mere disagreement [with a district court's ruling] does not support a Rule 59(e) motion." Hutchinson, 994 F.2d at 1082."In general[, ] reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

         IV. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

         In Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion, Plaintiffs request the Court alter or amend its Order under Rule 59(e)'s third basis: namely, the Court correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Plaintiffs first argue the Court should alter or amend its Order because it committed clear error by dismissing Plaintiffs' federal trademark dilution claim. Plaintiffs insist it is uncontested MTI is currently using the Mark in commerce, and because the Court held the SAC fails to allege commercial use of the Mark as required to maintain Plaintiffs' federal trademark dilution cause of action, it erred.

         Plaintiffs next assert the Court should alter or amend its Order because the Court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' federal declaratory judgment and trademark cancellation claims was with prejudice. Plaintiffs aver the Court erred in dismissing these two claims with prejudice because the Court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs maintain the dismissal of these claims should be without prejudice.

         Defendants repudiate each of these assertions and contend Plaintiffs' 59(e) motion must be denied because it is an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already decided.

         V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

         A. Plaintiffs' Federal ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.