Phillips Capital, Inc. v. Crestview LLC

Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11295
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 3:10-cv-00455-WS-CJK
PHILLIPS CAPITAL, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
CRESTVIEW LLC,
an Oregon limited liability company,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(October 23, 2012)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Phillips Capital, Inc. (“Phillips Capital”), appeals the district court’s denial
of its motion to alter or amend the judgment following the district court’s grant of
Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 2 of 4
Crestview LLC’s (“Crestview”) motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
Phillips Capital sued Crestview seeking declaratory and injunctive relief
based on rights and obligations set forth in a Voting Trust Agreement
(“Agreement”). The district court bifurcated the proceedings,1 suspended
discovery, and instructed both parties to file motions for summary judgment
“directed only to the issue of law regarding the rights and obligations of the parties
to the Voting Trust Agreement.” Dkt. 59 at 2. The district court granted
Crestview’s motion for summary judgment on this issue and dismissed the case
with prejudice. The district court concluded that, “[c]ontrary to the assertions of
Phillips Capital, the Agreement does not require Crestview to act in Phillips
Capital’s best interests.” Dkt. 76 at 6. Phillips Capital filed a motion to alter or
amend the district court’s Order, which the district court denied. Phillips Capital
appeals. We review the district court’s denial of a motion to alter or amend the
judgment for an abuse of discretion. Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 507 (11th
Cir. 1996).
In its motion to alter or amend, Phillips Capital first sought to reopen the
case to permit the amendment of pleadings based on additional acts or omissions
1
The district court bifurcated the proceedings between liability (whether Phillips
Capital was entitled to any relief under the Agreement) and damages.
2
Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 3 of 4
not originally alleged in the complaint. Phillips Capital only sought this motion to
add claims against Crestview—for gross negligence, intentional misconduct, a
breach of the agreement, and a knowing violation of the law—after the district
court granted Crestview’s summary judgment motion and noted that the express
provisions of the Agreement state that “[n]either the Trustee nor any Related
Person shall be liable, responsible or accountable . . . . except [for] Damages
resulting from acts or omissions of such Related Person which were taken or
omitted in bad faith or constituted gross negligence, intentional misconduct, a
breach of this Agreement or a knowing violation of the law.” Dkt. 76 at 7. But
Phillips Capital may not raise these additional claims in a motion to alter or
amend, especially where there is no allegation that any of these claims were not
available or could not be raised prior to summary judgment.2 See In re Kellogg,
197 F.3d 1116, 1119-20 (11th Cir. 1999); see also Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of
Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a party “cannot
use a Rule 59(e) motion to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present
evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment”).
Phillips Capital also sought clarification of the district court’s ruling and
2
For the same reasons, Phillips Capital is not entitled to further relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2202.
3
Case: 12-11295 Date Filed: 10/23/2012 Page: 4 of 4
asks this Court to clarify the preclusive effect on future litigation based on acts or
omissions committed after the filing of the complaint. But this Court declines to
speculate as to what additional lawsuits (if any) may be filed in the future and
what preclusive effect the district court’s grant of summary judgment on these
claims will have on any future litigation.
AFFIRMED.
4