NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 17a0278n.06 No. 16-4018

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT GMS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, BATCHELDER, and STRANCH ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge . This case arises from the untimely reporting of an insurance claim and the subseque nt denial of coverage. The district court properly granted summary judgment in this d eclaratory judgment ac tion, and we AFFIRM. GMS Management Company, Inc. (“GMS”) owns apartment buildings in Ohio and held a tenant discrimination liability insurance policy with Evanston Insurance Company (“Evanston”). On August 16, 2013, GMS received notice from th e Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) that Thomas Fasanaro had filed a housing discri mination charge against GMS. The notification letter informed GMS that it co uld engage in mediation, potentially resolving the charge before investigation began, or investig ation would proceed. GMS opted to engage in mediation on its own and did not notify Evanston of the charge. On December 3, 2013, afte r mediation failed and the OCRC began investigation, GMS re ported the claim to Evanston.No. 16-4018, GMS Mgmt. Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co.

-2- The insurance policy required that a claim be “promptly reported” to Evanston, and reported “in no event later than sixty (60) days from the date of the institution of any legal or administrative proceeding.” (Formatting altered). The policy further stated that reporting within the requisite sixty days was a “c ondition precedent to coverage.” (Formatting altered). Based on this language, and GMS’s failure to report the cl aim for almost four months after receiving notice, Evanston denied coverage to GMS. GMS filed a declaratory judgment suit agains t Evanston, alleging that Evanston’s denial of coverage was a breach of the insurance contract and in bad fa ith. The district court granted summary judgment to Evanston on both claims, finding that Evan ston properly denied coverage and that the denial was not in bad faith. The dist rict court also denied GMS’s motion to alter or amend judgment, filed under Federa l Rule of Civil Procedure 59( e), because the motion raised new arguments that GMS had failed to raise at summary judgment. GMS appeals the denial of its Rule 59 motion, raising certain arguments that were raised for the first time in that motion. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion. Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. , 616 F.3d 612, 615 (6th Cir. 2010). GMS has not demonstrated that the district cour t’s denial of the Rule 59 motion, and its refusal to consider GMS’s improperly raised arguments, were an abuse of discretion. “A plaintiff cannot use a Rule 59 motion . . . ‘to raise argum ents which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued.’” Id. at 616 (quoting Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Ci r. 1998)). Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s refusal to consider these arguments and deem them forfeited on appeal. See Jones v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. , ___ F. App’x ___, No. 16-5313, 2016 WL 6936526, at *3 (6th Cir.No. 16-4018, GMS Mgmt. Co. v. Evanston Ins. Co.

-3- Nov. 28, 2016); Wardle v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t , 45 F. App’x 505, 511 (6th Cir. 2002). To the extent that GMS has properly presente d other arguments, we find them meritless. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we are convinced that the district court did not err in its conclusions. The district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law govern ing the issues rais ed and clearly arti culates the reasons underlying its decision. Thus, issuance of a full written opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stat ed in the district co urt’s opinion, we AFFIRM.