United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GREN SCHOLER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Order addresses Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Judgment [ECF No.
32], For the following reasons, the Court denies the Motion.
September 19, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in
part Defendant Charter Communications, LLC's
("Charter") Motion to Compel Arbitration and
Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint ("Order").
See ECF No. 31. Specifically, the Court compelled
Plaintiffs claims against Charter to arbitration, and
dismissed those claims with prejudice. See Id. at 7.
On October 17, 2019, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Amend
Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
which is now fully briefed before this Court.
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e),
"'[m]otions ... to alter or amend a judgment must
clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or
must present newly discovered evidence,
'" Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting Fed. Deposit Ins. v.
Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986)).
'"Manifest error' is one that 'is plain and
indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the
controlling law."' Guy v. Crown Equip.
Corp., 394 F.3d 320, 325 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting
Venegas-Hernandez v. Sonolux Records, 370 F.3d 183,
195 (1st Cir. 2004)). "District courts have
'considerable discretion in deciding whether to grant or
deny a motion to alter a judgment.'" Du Bois v.
King, Civ, A. No. 3:17-CV-2668-L, 2019 WL 5887270, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019) (quoting Hale v. Townley,
45 F.3d 914, 921 (5th Cir. 1995)). In exercising this
discretion, a district court must "strike the proper
balance between the need for finality and the need to render
just decisions on the basis of all the facts."
Hate, 45 F.3d at 921 (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Rule 59(e) "favor[s] the denial of motions
to alter or amend a judgment." S. Constructors Grp.,
Inc. v. Dynalectric Co., 2 F.3d 606, 611 (5th Cir.
argues that the Court's dismissal of the claims, rather
than abatement of the claims, "was both erroneous and
manifestly unjust to Plaintiff under Fifth Circuit precedent.
Mot. 2. The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs interpretation of
the controlling precedent. Under Alford v. Dean Witter
Reynolds, Inc., the Court is authorized to "dismiss
... the case when all of the issues raised in the district
court must be submitted to arbitration." 975 F.2d 1161,
1164 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis omitted). Contrary to
Plaintiffs assertions, that standard remains the law of this
jurisdiction. See Elsadig v. Luxottica Retail N. Am.,
Inc., Civ. A. No. 3:16-CV-2055-L, 2017 WL 3234027, at *1
(N.D. Tex. July 31, 2017) (citing Alford, 975 F.2d
at 1164) ("Having determined that all of the issues
raised by the parties must be submitted to binding
arbitration, and finding no other reason to retain
jurisdiction over this matter, the court, rather than stay
and abate this action, will dismiss it with prejudice."
(emphasis omitted)); see also Matos v. AT&T
Corp., Civ. A. No, 3:18-CV-02591-M-BK, 2019 WL 5191922,
at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019) (same), The Court properly
exercised its discretion to dismiss, rather than stay,
Plaintiffs claims against Charter, see Order 7, and
"[Rule 59] motions may not be used to relitigate issues
that were resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction."
Kirby v, SBC Servs., Inc., Civ. A. No.
3:03-CV-3010-L, 2006 WL 154914, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 20,
2006) (citing Forsythe v. Saudi Arabian Airlines
Corp., 885 F.2d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 1989)). Therefore,
Plaintiffs argument is without merit.
foregoing reasons, Plaintiff fails to clearly establish a
manifest error of law or fact on the part of the Court.
Accordingly, the Court denies Plaintiffs Motion.
 Charter filed a response to Plaintiffs
Motion on November 7, 2019 [ECF No. 33], Plaintiff did not
File a reply.
 Plaintiff does not present any newly
discovered evidence, This Order, therefore, addresses only
whether the Court committed a manifest ...