JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman

Background

The court previously entered a preliminary injunction in this action. In a September 8, 2021 opinion, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Hayley Paige Gutman had violated that injunction and that the violation was willful. Based on that finding, the court awarded JLM Couture reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in pursuing the civil-contempt motion.

On December 21, 2022, the court awarded JLM $117,981.50 in attorneys’ fees and $825.09 in costs, for a total of $118,806.59. The court then entered a judgment for that amount on January 5, 2023.

Motion for Reconsideration

Gutman moved to modify or vacate the judgment. Although she initially cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), she agreed that the motion should be treated as a request for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 54(b), which concern reconsideration of certain nonfinal orders. The court explained that Rule 60(b) did not apply because the judgment did not end the litigation on the merits.

Under the reconsideration standard, relief is available only for an intervening change in controlling law, genuinely new evidence that was previously unavailable despite diligence, or a clear legal error or manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not meant to let a party relitigate issues or present the same arguments again.

Court’s Reasoning

Gutman argued that her financial situation had deteriorated since the earlier briefing and that the award should be reduced to avoid an excessive or punitive sanction. The court noted that it had already considered and rejected her arguments about her ability to pay when deciding the contempt motion and the fee award.

The court also concluded that Gutman had not identified qualifying new evidence. She did not show that evidence about her earlier financial condition had been unavailable during the prior proceedings, and her submissions primarily concerned events after the fee-application briefing, including dissipated assets, additional liabilities, and a lack of new income.

The court further held that Gutman’s recent financial information did not show that the court had overlooked information that would change the fee award or that enforcing the award would cause manifest injustice. The court noted that Gutman had known since the 2021 contempt opinion that JLM had received a fee award and that the preliminary injunction did not prevent her from pursuing noncompetitive work, including designing shoes and developing a shoe company identified as “SHE IS CHEVAL.”

Disposition

The court concluded that Gutman had not shown any basis to reconsider the contempt opinion, the fee-award order, or the judgment. It therefore denied Gutman’s motion for reconsideration of the fee award. The order resolved docket entry number 418, and the case remained referred to Magistrate Judge Cave for general pretrial management.