Opinion ID: 593291
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unreasonable Time

Text: 22 Relying on P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 19, § 93, Santa Barbara next argues that neither Union nor the FDIC is a holder in due course because the instrument was negotiated to Union and the FDIC an unreasonable length of time after its issuance. 7 Santa Barbara raised this argument for the first time in its motion requesting that the district court alter or amend its judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). 23 Rule 59(e) motions are aimed at reconsideration, not initial consideration. Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. v. Bank of New England, 897 F.2d 611, 616 (1st Cir.1990) (citing White v. New Hampshire Dept. of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 451, 102 S.Ct. 1162, 1166, 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982)) (emphasis in original). Thus, parties should not use them to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before judgment issued. Id. (quoting Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir.1986)). Motions under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest error of law or must present newly discovered evidence. Meyer, 781 F.2d at 1268. They may not be used to argue a new legal theory. Id. 24 Here, there was no reason why Santa Barbara could not have made its unreasonable time argument before the district court entered judgment. Moreover, the argument neither reveals a manifest error of law nor presents newly discovered evidence. As a result, we find no error in the district court's refusal to amend or alter its judgment based on this argument.