1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

GLOBAL MARINE EXPLORATION, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:20-cv-181-AW-MJF

REPUBLIC OF FRANCE, 

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER DENYING POSTJUDGMENT MOTIONS

Concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities 

Act, the court granted France’s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 29. GME then moved

for amended or additional facts findings (ECF No. 32) and for an order altering or 

amending the judgment (ECF No. 33). This order denies both motions.

I.

GME first asks for amended or additional fact findings pursuant to Rule 52(b). 

“The purpose of [Rule 52(b) motions] is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or, 

in some limited situations, to present newly discovered evidence.” Johnson v. New 

Destiny Christian Ctr. Church, Inc., 771 F. App’x 991, 995 n.5 (11th Cir.), 

(alteration in original) (quoting Fontenot v. Mesa Petrol. Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 

(5th Cir. 1986)), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 523 (2019); see also 9C Arthur R. Miller, 

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2571 (3d ed.).

Case 4:20-cv-00181-AW-MJF Document 40 Filed 03/08/21 Page 1 of 3
2

GME identifies no manifest error in the facts I relied on in dismissing its case.

Nor does it explain why any of the facts it says I should recognize would have any 

bearing on the case. For example, GME disputes whether the Jean Ribault’s fleet 

was a “French Royal Navy Fleet” or military property (ECF No. 32 at 6-7), but I 

found neither fact dispositive as to the ultimate conclusion about jurisdiction.

In short, GME has not shown any basis for amended or additional fact 

findings.

II.

GME also seeks an amended or altered judgment under Rule 59(e). In asking 

a court to reconsider its judgment, a defendant cannot “relitigate old matters, raise 

argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of 

judgment.” Michael Linet, Inc. v. Vill. of Wellington, 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 

2005). In fact, the “only grounds for granting [a Rule 59] motion are newlydiscovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.” Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 

1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Kellogg, 197 F.3d 

1116, 1119 (11th Cir. 1999)).

GME does not meet this standard. GME’s disagreement with the order’s legal 

analysis is insufficient to support a motion to reconsider. Most of GME’s argument 

rehashes cases already discussed in the initial briefing. See ECF No. 33 at 6-7, 9, 11. 

Case 4:20-cv-00181-AW-MJF Document 40 Filed 03/08/21 Page 2 of 3
3

And to the extent GME introduces new cases, they are not new in the sense that they 

could not have been raised earlier. 

Finally, after the order issued and GME filed its motions, the Supreme Court 

issued a new opinion concerning the FSIA. Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, 

141 S. Ct. 703 (2021). Though Philipp concerns a different FSIA provision, it

cautions against taking an expansive reading of the FSIA. See id. at 714 (“We 

interpret the FSIA as we do other statutes affecting international relations: to avoid, 

where possible, producing friction in our relations with [other] nations and leading 

some to reciprocate by granting their courts permission to embroil the United States 

in expensive and difficult litigation.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation 

omitted)).

III.

GME’s Motion for Amended or Additional Findings (ECF No. 32) and 

Motion to Alter or Amend (Reconsider) Judgment (ECF No. 33) are DENIED. The 

case remains closed.

SO ORDERED on March 8, 2021. 

s/ Allen Winsor

United States District Judge

Case 4:20-cv-00181-AW-MJF Document 40 Filed 03/08/21 Page 3 of 3