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.

Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. v. Cox

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Aberdeen Division

August 22, 2019

RONALDO DESIGNER JEWELRY, INC. PLAINTIFF
v.
JAMES B. COX and CATHERINE A. COX d/b/a JC DESIGNS d/b/a WIRE N RINGS and JOHN DOE a/k/a LEROY and JOHN DOES No. 1 through 99 DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          DEBRA M. BROWN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 16 order issuing requests to the Register of Copyrights, Doc. #358; and motion to strike the defendants' response to the Court's July 19 order, Doc. #361.

         I

         Procedural History

         On July 16, 2019, this Court entered an order granting in part the defendants' motion for issuance of a request to the Register of Copyrights. Doc. #356. The order authorized two questions to the Register: (1) “whether the Copyright Office would have rejected the application for the Angelina bracelet if it had known the bracelet was based on the Reuther bar bracelet” and (2) “whether the Copyright Office would have rejected the application for the Power of Prayer bracelet if it had known the bracelet was based on the Reuther window bracelet.” Id. at 10-11.

         The Court based the window bracelet question on its comparison of the Power of Prayer bracelet and the image in document #169-2, [1] which the Court, based on the defendants' representations, presumed to be a design of Preston Reuther.[2] Id. at 8-10.

         On July 19, 2019, Ronaldo Designer Jewelry, Inc. filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 16 order on the ground that the image in document #169-2 was not designed by Reuther. Doc. #358 at 1-2. The same day, the Court directed the defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration and to “identify which Preston Reuther product ‘previously submitted in pleadings' matches the description in their supplemental reply, i.e., includes a ‘wire window, vertical wraps, and seven beads ….'” Doc. #359. The defendants responded in opposition to the motion for reconsideration on July 26, 2019. Doc. #360. Five days later, Ronaldo moved to strike the defendants' response. Doc. #361. The motion to strike is fully briefed. Docs. #362, #363.

         II

         Motion for Reconsideration Standard

         As a general rule, requests for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, such as the one at issue here, is properly treated as a motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Helena Labs. Corp. v. Alpha Sci. Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 538, 538 n.1 (E.D. Tex. 2007).

Although the source of the court's authority to revise or amend an order or judgment is different for interlocutory orders than for final orders or judgments, many of the same policy considerations apply both to motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) and to motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e). Accordingly, district courts … frequently apply the same standards to the two.

eTool Dev., Inc. v. Nat'l Semiconductor Corp., 881 F.Supp.2d 745, 748 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (collecting cases).

         Under Fifth Circuit jurisprudence:

A Rule 59(e) motion calls into question the correctness of a judgment. This Court has held that such a motion is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment. Rather, Rule 59(e) serves the narrow purpose of allowing a party to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. ...

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.