Opinion ID: 3050936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for a New Trial or Rehearing

Text: The Davises claim that the district court erred in denying their motion for a new trial or rehearing. “A district court has sound discretion whether to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to a motion for reconsideration, and its decision will only be reversed if it abused that discretion.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009). The Davises raised a new legal theory—that Habitat failed to accommodate under § 3604(f)(3)(B)— in their motion for reconsideration. We agree with the district court that this theory could have been raised prior to the entry of summary judgment. “A motion for reconsideration 6 Case: 13-13283 Date Filed: 02/28/2014 Page: 7 of 7 cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment. This prohibition includes new arguments that were previously available, but not pressed.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Davises’ motion. See id. AFFIRMED. 7