United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division
ORDER AND OPINION
Richard Mark Gorgel United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendant Bullard Company's
motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68). For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies the motion.
SafeRack, LLC ("SafeRack") alleged that Defendant
Bullard Company's ("Bullard") use of orange on
"gangways, railings, and gates" infringed on its
trademark and trade dress and constituted unfair competition
in violation of the Lanham Act and the South Carolina Unfair
Trade Practices Act ("SCUTPA"). SafeRack also
brought a claim for unjust enrichment. The Court granted in
part and denied in part summary judgment in favor of SafeRack
on November 28, 2018. (Dkt. No. 65.) Importantly, the Court
granted summary judgment in favor of SafeRack on its
trademark infringement claim under the Lanham Act. (Dkt. No.
65 at 18 - 19.) Bullard now moves for reconsideration. (Dkt.
59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions
to alter or amend a judgment; however, the rule does not
provide a legal standard for such motions. The Fourth
Circuit has articulated "three grounds for amending an
earlier judgment: (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." Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am.
Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.
1998) citing EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 116 F.3d
110, 112 (4th Cir. 1997); Hutchinson v. Staton, 994
F.2d 1076, 1081 (4th Cir. 1993). "Rule 59(e) motions may
not be used, however, to raise arguments which could have
been raised prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor may
they be used to argue a case under a novel legal theory that
the party had the ability to address in the first
instance." Id. at 403 (internal citations
omitted). Rule 59(e) provides an "extraordinary remedy
that should be used sparingly." Id. (internal
citation omitted). The decision to alter or amend a judgment
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 402.
the justifications for reconsideration are present here.
There is no intervening change in controlling law since the
Court's November 28, 2018 ruling. Further, Defendant
Bullard identified no new evidence to support its motion for
reconsideration, and instead focuses exclusively on
reiterating arguments based on evidence that was presented to
the Court at summary judgment. Finally, the Court's
ruling was not a clear error of law or manifestly unjust.
Instead of arguing that the Court made any clear error of
law,  Defendant Bullard's motion for
reconsideration is an almost verbatim recitation of arguments
previously presented to the Court in Bullard's briefs for
summary judgment. (See Dkt. Nos. 49, 57, 58, 68.)
However, these arguments have already been discussed and
decided by the Court. Defendant Bullard additionally
identified no manifest injustice from the Court's Order.
Therefore, the Court already considered and ruled on all of
Defendant Bullard's arguments and Bullard cannot meet the
standard for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).
reasons above, Defendant Bullard Company's motion for
reconsideration (Dkt. No. 68) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
 Defendant Bullard, in their motion,
additionally cited the standard for reconsideration under
Rule 54(b). However, this motion is reviewed under the
standard applied to Rule 59, and Rule 54(b) is inapplicable
here as the Court's Order ...