United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. Hood Senior U.S. District Judge.
matter is before the Court on the parties' motions to
alter, amend, or correct the preliminary injunction
previously imposed by the Court. [DE 52; DE 55; DE 58]. After
reviewing the briefs, the Defendants' motion to alter or
amend [DE 52] and supplemental motion to alter or amend [DE
58] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED
IN PART and Plaintiff's motion to correct [DE
58] is GRANTED.
action, initially filed in November 2018, has a complex and
lengthy procedural history that need not be repeated in full
here. Previously, after a hearing, the Court
granted a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo
for the duration of this lawsuit. [DE 48]. Subsequently, the
Defendants moved to alter or amend the preliminary
injunction. [DE 52]. Then, the Plaintiff moved to correct the
preliminary injunction. [DE 55]. Finally, the Defendants
filed a supplemental motion to clarify. [DE 58]. At present,
the motions have either been fully briefed or the time for
briefing has passed. As a result, the pending motions are
ripe for review.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to file a
motion to alter or amend a judgment within 28 days after the
entry thereof. “A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion
to alter or amend if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2)
newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in
controlling law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest
injustice.” Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428
F.3d 605, 620 (6th Cir. 2005).
motion under Rule 59(e) does not simply provide an
opportunity to reargue a case, and it must be supported
either by a showing that the district court made an error of
law or by newly discovered evidence.” Whitehead v.
Bowen, 301 Fed.Appx. 484, 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing
Sault Ste Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998); Roger
Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC, 477 F.3d
383, 395 (6th Cir. 2007)). The Rule is not “a
substitute for appeal.” Turner v. City of
Toledo, 671 F.Supp.2d 967, 969 (N.D. Ohio 2009).
“If . . . a Rule 59 motion merely quibbles with the
Court's decision, the proper recourse is not a motion for
reconsideration but instead an appeal to the Sixth
Circuit.” Zell v. Klingelhafer, No. 13-cv-458,
2018 WL 334386, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 8, 2018).
BB&T's Request for Oral Argument
has requested oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(f).
[DE 61 at 1, Pg ID 903]. But BB&T has not explained why
oral argument is necessary in this matter or how additional
argument will assist the Court in resolving the pending
motions. As the Court noted, this case has a complex history
and the record is well developed. Additionally, the Court
heard oral argument from the parties on the motion for
preliminary injunction and the parties have either fully
briefed the pending motions or the time for briefing has
passed. As such, oral argument is unnecessary to resolve the
disputes currently pending before the Court.
Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend
Defendants contend that the Court's preliminary
injunction contains inconsistent provisions necessitating
correction or clarification. In response, the Plaintiff
claims that the Defendants are trying to reap the rewards of
their wrongful solicitation of BB&T customers. These
arguments and the relevant provisions of the preliminary
injunction are discussed below.
Relevant Provisions of the Preliminary Injunction
Court's preliminary injunction states in part,
Defendants Laura Massey Jones, Ralph S. “Bud”
Watson, II, John Cadwell, and The Farmers National Bank of
Danville, d/b/a WealthSouth, as well as their
representatives, employees, agents, and assigns, are hereby
ENJOINED from doing the following:
. . .
(c) Receiving any future benefit from solicitation of
BB&T's current or potential depositors, customers, or
clients in breach of Jones's, Watson's, and
Cadwell's non-solicitation agreements and the Individual
Defendants' nondisclosure agreements from September 4,
2018, until this matter is resolved[.]
[DE 48 at 2, Pg ID 691 (emphasis in original)]. This
provision is intended to prevent any future harm to BB&T
by enjoining WealthSouth from transferring the business of
any former BB&T customer who was solicited in violation
of the BB&T non-solicitation ...