United States District Court, D. Maine
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Torresen United States Chief District Judge.
Roger Pushor moves for reconsideration of my May 17, 2018
order dismissing his complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 12). He also moves in
the alternative for leave to amend his complaint. Mot. for
Recons. For the following reasons, Pushor's motion is
requests reconsideration under Local Rule 7(g). Mot. for
Recons. 1. Local Rule 7, however, currently contains only
subsections (a)-(f), and while Local Rule 7(f) relates to
motions for reconsideration, it applies to orders that are
interlocutory. Here, where judgment has entered against the
Plaintiff, Local Rule 7(f) does not apply.
for reconsideration of a judgment are governed by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. “[I]t is settled in
this circuit that a motion which asked the court to modify
its earlier disposition of a case because of an allegedly
erroneous legal result is brought under Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e).” Appeal of Sun Pipe Line Co., 831 F.2d
22, 24 (1st Cir. 1987); accord Acevedo-Villalobos v.
Hernandez, 22 F.3d 384, 390 (1st Cir. 1994). Here,
because Pushor claims an erroneous legal result and because
he filed and provided electronic service of his motion within
12 days of the entry of judgment (and 13 days of the order
granting dismissal of his claims), Rule 59(e)
under Rule 59(e) must either clearly establish a manifest
error of law or must present newly discovered
evidence.” United States v. $23, 000 in U.S.
Currency, 356 F.3d 157, 165 n.9 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting
FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.
1992)). “[A] party moving for Rule 59(e) relief may not
repeat arguments previously made . . ., nor may it present
new arguments on a Rule 59(e) if such arguments ‘could,
and should, have been made before judgment issued.'
” Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674
F.3d 21, 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Prescott v.
Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 45 (1st Cir. 2008); ACA Fin.
Guar. Corp. v. Advest, Inc., 512 F.3d 46, 55 (1st Cir.
2008)). Granting a motion for reconsideration is “an
extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.”
Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir.
2006) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).
motion for reconsideration, Pushor contends that I made a
manifest error of law in my May 17 order. The order,
according to Pushor, sets an untenable precedent for
employees who work remotely for employers outside of the
state. It would, in his view, mean that Maine citizens and
the State of Maine would be unable to enforce Maine laws in
Maine courts. Mot. for Recons. 1-2. I disagree. My order held
only that on the facts as presented by Pushor,  Mt. Washington
Observatory (“the Observatory”)
lacked sufficient minimal contacts to satisfy due process and
Maine's long-arm statute.
does not seek to present newly discovered evidence. Although
he proposes a one-sentence amendment to his Complaint,
merely clarifies the hours Pushor worked, information known
first and best by him. Without a manifest error of law or
newly discovered evidence, the motion for reconsideration
fails under Rule 59(e).
moves, as an alternative to his motion for reconsideration,
to amend his Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2). See, supra, n.4. Under Rule
15(a)(2), courts “should freely give leave [to amend]
when justice so requires.” Despite this broad
discretion, requests to amend a complaint filed
after judgment has entered, “whatever their
merit, cannot be allowed unless and until the judgment is
vacated.” Palmer, 465 F.3d at 30 (citing 6
Federal Practice and Procedure, supra, § 1489
(2d ed. 1990)). Because Pushor has not met the
requirements for reconsideration under Rule 59(e), the
judgment stands,  and amendment is unavailable.
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the
 Under Rule 59(e), service of a motion
must be made within 28 days of the entry of judgment.
Perez-Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993
F.2d 281, 284 (1st Cir. 1993) (“Which rule applies to a
motion depends essentially on the time a motion is
 By contrast, Rule 60(b) constrains
relief available to the movant to six, enumerated grounds.
“In other words, the litigant who gets his motion in on
time enjoys the full menu of grounds for relief provided by
Rule 59; if not, he is confined to the six specific grounds
of relief found in Rule 60(b).” Perez-Perez,
993 F.2d at 284. An additional benefit of a Rule 59(e) motion