ROTHWELL v. MARSHALL CREEK RANCH, LLC, et al.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
TRISH ROTHWELL
v.
MARSHALL CREEK RANCH, LLC,
ET AL.
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-116-SDJ
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial. (Dkt. #51). Therein,
Plaintiff Trish Rothwell (“Rothwell”) asks the Court to vacate its Final Judgment,
(Dkt. #50), which granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. #27).
Defendants Marshall Creek Ranch, LLC and Shandra Doran (collectively, “Marshall
Creek Ranch”) oppose the motion. (Dkt. #52). Having considered the briefing and
applicable law, the Court concludes that the motion should be denied.
I.
A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment “calls into question the
correctness of a judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 478 (5th Cir.
2004) (quoting In re Transtexas Gas Corp., 303 F.3d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 2002)).
“Reconsideration of a judgment after its entry is an extraordinary remedy that should
be used sparingly.” Id. at 479 (citing 11 Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice &
Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). Such a motion “must clearly establish either a
manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence and cannot
be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the
Case 4:23-cv-00116-SDJ-AGD Document 53 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
judgment issued.” Bolton v. United States, 946 F.3d 256, 262 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting
Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003)).
II.
As the Fifth Circuit has admonished, a Rule 59(e) motion may not be used
simply for “rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been
raised before the entry of judgment” or to relitigate matters that were not resolved to
the movant’s satisfaction. In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 986, 992 (5th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Templet, 367 F.3d at 479); see also Smith v. Osborne, No. 4:18-CV-906,
2020 WL 	4808605, 	at 	*1 	(E.D. 	Tex. 	July 	14, 	2020) 	(explaining 	that 	“mere
disagreement” 	with 	an 	order 	does 	not 	warrant 	reconsideration), 	report 	and
recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4785069 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2020).
Here, Rothwell relitigates issues that have already been thoroughly considered
and decided by the Court. In the motion, Rothwell asserts that there is a manifest
error of law in the Court’s final judgment because the liability waiver at issue (1) is
not conspicuous, (2) does not unequivocally identify the causes of action being
released, (3) is ambiguous, and (4) violates public policy. (Dkt. #51 at 3–9). These
arguments are the same arguments previously raised by Rothwell in her Objections
to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, (Dkt. #48)
(objecting to (Dkt. #41)). Compare (Dkt. #51), with (Dkt. #48). And, as explained in
the 	Memorandum 	Adopting 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	of 	United 	States
Magistrate Judge, the Court “conducted a de novo review of Plaintiff’s objections” and
concluded that “the findings of the Magistrate Judge are correct.” (Dkt. #49 at 1).
Case 4:23-cv-00116-SDJ-AGD Document 53 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Because Rothwell fails to present any argument that this Court has not
already considered and rejected, there is no basis for the “extraordinary remedy” of
altering or amending the Court’s previous judgment granting Marshall Creek
Ranch’s motion for summary judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Trish Rothwell’s Motion for New
Trial, (Dkt. #51), is DENIED.
Case 4:23-cv-00116-SDJ-AGD Document 53 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>