Case Activity (438)

1. Appeal | Filed: June 26, 2026 | Entered: June 26, 2026 Subsea Marine Services, Inc. v. Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc.

   Contract: Other | Florida Southern

   Notice of Appeal

   Amended Notice of Appeal as to 198 Order on Motion to Alter Judgment, 199 Judgment, 182 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, by Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc.. Filing fee $ 605.00. No Filing Fee Required. Within fourteen days of the filing date of a Notice of Appeal, the appellant must complete the Eleventh Circuit Transcript Order Form regardless of whether transcripts are being ordered [Pursuant to FRAP 10(b)]. For information go to our FLSD website under All Forms and look for Transcript Order Form www.flsd.uscourts.gov/forms/all-forms. (Samra, Harout)

2. Order | Filed: June 24, 2026 | Entered: June 24, 2026 Subsea Marine Services, Inc. v. Sint Maarten International Telecommunications Services, Inc.

   Contract: Other | Florida Southern

   Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

   PAPERLESS ORDER denying 207 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). After filing a scant four-page opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Interest 183 , Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Prejudgment Interest 198 , arguing that granting prejudgment interest constitutes a manifest injustice warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e). The Court disagrees. For starters, Defendant presents no new facts or intervening change in controlling law. See Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) ("The only grounds for granting a Rule 59 motion are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact" (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted)); see also Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1369 (S.D. Fla. 2002) ("[T]here are three major grounds which justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice."). Further, "[a] Rule 59(e) motion cannot be used to relitigate old matters, raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Arthur, 500 F.3d at 1343 (alteration adopted) (quotation omitted). Defendant could have raised these arguments in response to Plaintiff's Motion. Instead, Defendant filed a cursory four-page response 183 , and now belatedly seeks to improperly use Rule 59(e) to "raise argument... that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." See id. In any case, Defendant's Motion shows no manifest injustice because the prejudgment interest sought by Plaintiff and awarded by the Court is warranted under the facts of this case and applicable Puerto Rican authority. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 6/24/2026. (nct)

3. 436 additional result(s)