Opinion ID: 628267
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Post-Judgment Rulings

Text: 63 Appellants object to the rulings on their attempt to rely on a newly raised legal theory as a basis for reconsideration of the summary judgment. Judgment was entered on January 31, 1992. Ten days later (February 10), appellants moved for a new trial (Fed.R.Civ.P. 59), reiterating arguments presented in their pre-judgment motions. 64 A month later (March 9), appellant-investor Turnbull enrolled new counsel, who, on March 27, filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of the February 10 motion. The supporting memorandum, adopted by the other plaintiff-investors, asserted for the first time that Home and Graham had aided and abetted Equity in violation of Rule 10b-9, issued under Sec. 10(b) of the 1934 Act. 55 The court denied the motion for leave to supplement, stating that [t]he issues raised in this supplemental memo have never been presented before. Turnbull requested reconsideration. 65 On April 1, the parties argued the merits of the original (February 10) motion for a new trial. In addition, Turnbull urged that the court consider the Rule 10b-9 theory presented in the supplemental memorandum (which the court had not allowed to be filed), and gave a brief overview of the applicable law. The court agreed with Home and Graham that Rule 10b-9 had not been raised in six years of litigation, and thus refused to consider the new theory/issue. The court also denied the motion for a new trial. 66 Appellants do not dispute the district court's disposition of their motion for a new trial; rather, they object to its refusal to consider Turnbull's supplemental memorandum. For starters, they contend that simply by raising Sec. 10(b) early on, they put in issue any and all rules adopted pursuant to it. Obviously, this contention is totally without merit. It goes without saying that, in order to be properly raised, an issue must be more specifically framed than as appellants claim. Otherwise, the court, not the parties, would be charged with deciding which claims should be pursued. 67 Appellants also use more specific approaches to attempt to save this new issue. [A] trial court may in the exercise of its sound discretion allow a tardy amendment stating an additional ground for a new trial. Dotson v. Clark Equipment Co., 805 F.2d 1225, 1228 (5th Cir.1986) (emphasis in original). The district court certainly did not abuse its discretion, considering the basis for the motion, the length of delay, and the lack of explanation for not having timely raised the issue. 68 First, we agree with the district court that the Rule 10b-9 theory is new. (In fact, at the April 1 hearing, Turnbull's counsel admitted that a new theory was being presented: I suggest that all the facts are before the Court, have been before the Court, and this is simply another theory. (Emphasis added.)) As is apparent from Turnbull's post-judgment efforts and brief on appeal, appellants' theory requires the assertion of legal issues not previously raised; 56 the introduction of additional evidence; 57 and the analysis of a different law. 58 69 The court was under no obligation to permit appellants to interject a new legal theory, without explanation, after they had failed to do so during three years of discovery, two additional years between the court's granting summary judgment and entering judgment, and almost two months following that entry. See Allied Bank-West, N.A. v. Stein, 996 F.2d 111, 115 (5th Cir.1993) (internal quotations omitted) ([m]otions for new trial cannot be used to argue a case under a new legal theory); Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990) (stating same with respect to a motion to alter or amend); 59 see also Russ v. International Paper Co., 943 F.2d 589, 593 (5th Cir.1991) (denying Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration because plaintiff did not explain his failure to submit evidentiary materials prior to judgment). 60 As stated, the district court did not abuse its discretion.III. 70 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is 71 AFFIRMED.