Summary
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina denied Maria Douglas’s motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court held that Douglas had not shown clear error or manifest injustice concerning her tortious-interference claim because she failed to provide sufficient evidence of an underlying contract. The court also declined to reconsider her negligent supervision and retention claim because that claim depended on a viable underlying tort claim.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Douglas demonstrated a clear error of law or manifest injustice warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e) of the summary judgment ruling on her tortious-interference-with-contract claim.
- Whether the court could reconsider Douglas's negligent supervision and retention claim absent clear error in the underlying tortious-interference ruling.
- Whether Douglas waived the contract-existence issue by failing to develop or oppose it in her response to defendants' summary-judgment motion.
Holdings
- Reconsideration was not warranted because Douglas failed to show clear error or manifest injustice in the court's conclusion that she lacked sufficient evidence of a valid contract.
- Douglas waived the issue of whether a contract existed by failing to develop an argument addressing defendants' contention that she had insufficient evidence of a contract.
- The court could not grant reconsideration of the negligent supervision and retention claim because that claim depended on an underlying tortious act, and the court found no clear error in rejecting the tortious-interference claim.
Key quotations
“Rule 59(e) permits a court to amend a judgment for three reasons: “(1) to accommodate an intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”” (Rule 59(e) discussion)
“Reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that should be applied sparingly.”” (Rule 59(e) discussion)
“Tortious inference of contract requires a showing of five elements: (1) a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third person which confers upon the plaintiff a contractual right against a third person; (2) the defendant knows of the contract; (3) the defendant intentionally induces the third person not to perform the contract; (4) and in doing so acts without justification; (5) resulting in actual damage to plaintiff.” (Tortious interference discussion)
“A party waives an argument . . . by failing to develop its argument—even if its brief takes a passing shot at the issue.” (Waiver discussion)
Factual background
Douglas alleged that pharmacist Kyle Crisco contacted a pain-management medical-care provider and falsely claimed that he had been assaulted by Douglas's husband, causing the provider to end its medical relationship with Douglas. She asserted tortious interference with contract and negligent supervision and retention claims against the defendants. In support of the contract element, Douglas testified that she had signed a contract but had neither produced it in discovery nor given it to her lawyer.
Procedural history
Douglas sued a pharmacist and CVS Pharmacy, Inc., asserting tortious interference with contract and negligent supervision and retention. The court previously granted defendants summary judgment on all claims. Douglas then moved for reconsideration, arguing clear error or manifest injustice; the court denied the motion.