Opinion ID: 538900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Reconsideration Appeal

Text: 9 The district court treated Courtney's motion for reconsideration as one to alter or amend under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and considered the propriety of relief under the standards set forth in Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). 10 Courtney made two additional arguments supporting his implied contract theory and submitted an affidavit in support of his defamation claim. The court rejected his contentions, one as duplicative of arguments raised in opposition to summary judgment, and the other because it assumed a proposition rejected in the order granting summary judgment. The court also refused to consider an affidavit, which alleged that the customer had been told that Courtney had been fired for doing shady business. The district court stated that Courtney had failed to show that this evidence could not have been uncovered prior to his opposition to the motion for summary judgment.