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.

Projects Management Company v. DynCorp International, LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

April 15, 2014

PROJECTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant

Page 540

For Projects Management Company, Plaintiff: David Michael Morris, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC; Marisa M.E. Fortunati, LEAD ATTORNEY, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP*, Miami, FL; Thomas B. Kenworthy, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Philadelphia, PA.

For DynCorp International LLC, Defendant: Joseph William Koegel, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Steptoe & Johnson, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 541

MEMORANDUM OPINION

T. S. Ellis, III, United States District Judge.

By Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order dated March 26, 2014, summary judgment issued in favor of defendant DynCorp International, LLC (" DynCorp" ) and the case was dismissed. Projects Management Co. v. DynCorp Intern., LLC, 2014 WL 1248075 (E.D. Va. March 26, 2014). Plaintiff Projects Management Company (" PMC" ) has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the March 26, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order, which in large measure simply repeats the arguments made in the course of briefing and argument on the summary judgment motion and calls attention to factual quibbles that are not material to the disposition of the case. For the reasons that follow, the motion for reconsideration must be denied.

I.

A motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed. R. Civ. P., may be granted in three circumstances: (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). Importantly, however, a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration may not be used to " reargue[] the facts and law originally argued in the parties' briefs." United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 969 F.Supp. 975, 977 (E.D. Va. 1997). See also Pacific Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (" The Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to relitigate old matters." ). In other words, a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is inappropriate if it asks the court to " reevaluate the basis upon which it made a prior ruling" or " merely seeks to reargue a previous claim." United States v. Smithfield Foods, 969 F.Supp. at 977. Moreover, reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an " extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly." Pacific Ins. Co., 148 F.3d at 403.

Here, summary judgment was unquestionably fully briefed and argued. Indeed, as DynCorp correctly notes, the parties filed eight memoranda addressing DynCorp's motion for summary judgment, totaling over one hundred pages. The points of law PMC now raises in support of reconsideration are points of law already fully addressed in both the parties' prior memoranda and in the Memorandum Opinion. In these circumstances, a motion for reconsideration is plainly unwarranted. But in the interest of ensuring that summary judgment was properly granted, the merits of the motion will be addressed.

II.

PMC moves for reconsideration based on the following arguments:

(1) Only Virginia law governs the damages issue in this case, and the Order granting summary judgment relied on both ...

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.