Opinion ID: 202883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the request for reconsideration

Text: LAMCO argues that the district court erred in refusing to grant the petition for reconsideration, stating that it provided additional evidence. The evidence was a copy of the assignment to LAMCO from Mr. Corretjer's family. Mr. Brown points out that the assignment does not concern copyright validity; it is a transfer of whatever rights the family had, not a creator of rights. LAMCO does not explain how this document establishes a valid copyright in the poems. The district court correctly rejected LAMCO's argument that the assignment was newly discovered evidence, or that it became relevant only upon the court's ruling. We agree with the court that no basis for reconsideration was shown. See Jorge Rivera Surillo & Co. v. Falconer Glass Indus., 37 F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir.1994) (motions for reconsideration are for the purpose of correcting manifest errors of law or fact, or if there is newly-discovered evidence, or an intervening change in the law). In its petition, LAMCO also proposed to withdraw its prior admission that Yerba Bruja was first published in 1957. Brown points out that LAMCO proffered no evidence in contradiction of the publication documents of record, and that no error has been shown in the district court's denial of reconsideration.