LOBSTER 207 LLC v. PETTEGROW et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LOBSTER 207, LLC, 	)
)
Plaintiff 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:19-CV-00552-LEW
)
WARREN B. PETTEGROW, et al., 	)
)
Defendants 	)
ORDER ON STEPHEN PEABODY’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Defendant Stephen Peabody requests that I reconsider my ruling on his summary
judgment motion to the extent that it was denied. Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 432).
Specifically, Peabody contends that the price-related fraud claim discussed in the order on
his motion (ECF No. 431) cannot be substantiated at trial because there is no evidence in
the record of Albert Carver’s historical, day-to-day prices against which to compare
Trenton Bridge’s historical, same-day payments to the BJ Co-op.
While 	reconsideration 	is 	not 	an 	opportunity 	to 	“reargue 	theories 	previously
advanced and rejected,” Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 29-30 (1st Cir. 2006),
a party may refine a request for relief when it perceives that the court overlooked one of its
contentions. 	As an interlocutory order, the order on the motion for summary judgment
comes within my “discretionary power to alter it at any time prior to the entry of the final
decree.” 	Farr Man & Co. v. M/V Rozita, 903 F.2d 871, 875 (1st Cir. 1990). See also
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 453 Filed 02/28/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Nieves-Luciano v. Hernandez-Torres, 397 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2005) (“Interlocutory orders
. . . remain open to trial court reconsideration until the entry of judgment.” (cleaned up)).
I am not persuaded that there is cause to enter summary judgment for Peabody based
on the parties’ apparent inability to offer a day-by-day comparison of Albert Carver’s
historical pricing and the historical pricing relationship between Trenton Bridge and the BJ
Co-op. 	My understanding of the record is that it was generally understood in the
community that Albert Carver established the regional ceiling on lobster pricing offered by
docks, such that any premium over and above his rate would necessarily exceed the market
rate of every dock in the area. 	There is evidence in the record that Mr. Peabody would
have appreciated what the going rate was and what the ceiling was, as Carver was known
to announce his price, and Peabody has testified to his understanding that the margin
Trenton Bridge historically paid to the BJ Co-op did not exceed even the going rate by as
much as 20 cents, let alone Carver’s rate.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 432) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 28th day of February, 2023.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:19-cv-00552-LEW Document 453 Filed 02/28/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>