Opinion ID: 4015704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Calculation of Liquidated Damages

Text: Daniels next argues that the district court abused its discretion in granting Davis’ motion to reconsider the damages portion of the summary judgment order because there were genuine questions of fact about whether Davis had credited 9 Case: 15-15741 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Page: 10 of 11 certain payments made by Daniels to the interest accrued on the principal value of the Notes. A motion for reconsideration is only appropriate when “absolutely necessary” to present: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) an intervening development or change in controlling law; or (3) a need to correct a clear error of law or fact. Bryan v. Murphy, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1256, 1258–59 (N.D. Ga. 2003). Daniels argues that the district court abused its discretion because none of the three grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration existed. We disagree. The order on motion for reconsideration recognizes that the summary judgment order “clearly erred” with regard to its finding that it was impossible to calculate the exact amount of liquidated damages due to the insufficiency of evidence about whether Davis had credited certain payments made by Daniels to the interest accrued on the principal value of the Notes. As Davis pointed out in his motion for reconsideration, Daniels’ response to Davis’ statement of material fact admits that Davis properly credited the payments at issue to the outstanding interest. Accordingly, there was no genuine question of fact that Davis credited the payments made by Daniels to the interest accrued on the principal value of the Notes. The district court correctly recognized its earlier clear error and did not abuse its discretion in granting Davis’ motion to reconsider the damages portion of the summary judgment order. 10 Case: 15-15741 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Page: 11 of 11