Opinion ID: 222717
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of motion to amend judgment

Text: Biamp argues that the district court erred in denying its Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment. More specifically, Biamp argues that the final judgment should have been amended because the district court erred in (a) rejecting the jury's $956,000 compensatory damages award and doubling it to $1,912,000, (b) entering the compensatory damages award against Biamp and the WideBand defendants jointly and severally, and (c) entering a duplicative $694,000 unjust enrichment award. Aplt. Br. at 46. We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for an abuse of discretion. Loughridge v. Chiles Power Supply Co., 431 F.3d 1268, 1275 (10th Cir.2005). A district court abuses its discretion if it made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances. The abuse of discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions. Id. (quotations omitted).