The Trial Lawyers College v. Gerry Spences Trial Lawyers College at Thunderhead Ranch et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
THE TRIAL LAWYERS COLLEGE,
a nonprofit corporation,
Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-80-JMC
GERRY SPENCES TRIAL LAWYERS
COLLEGE AT THUNDERHEAD RANCH,
a nonprofit corporation,
THE GERRY SPENCE METHOD AT
THUNDERHEAD RANCH INC,
a nonprofit corporation, and
JOHN ZELBST,
JOSEPH H. LOW,
KENT SPENCE, and
DANIEL AMBROSE, individuals,
Defendants,
JOHN JOYCE,
Defendant, Counterclaim Plaintiff,
GERALD L. SPENCE, and
REX PARRIS, individuals,
Defendants, Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHN SLOAN,
ANNE VALENTINE,
JAMES R. CLARY, JR,
MILTON GRIMES,
MAREN CHALOUPKA,
DANA COLE, individuals,
Third-Party Defendants,
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 572 Filed 10/07/22 Page 1 of 3

2
JOHN JOYCE,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
F WARRIORS,
Third-Party Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DENYING THE SPENCE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LIMITED RECONSIDERATION
On October 4, 2022, Defendants Gerry Spence Trial Institute, Gerald L. Spence, John
Zelbst, Rex Parris, Joseph H. Low, and Kent Spence (the “Spence Defendants”) filed a Motion for
Limited Reconsideration of the Portion of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to the Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (Doc. 543). Plaintiff The Trial
Lawyers College responded in opposition (Doc. 561).
According to the Spence Defendants, they are entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) because, absent relief, manifest injustice will occur. “Rule 59(e) relief is available
in limited circumstances, including ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) [when]
new evidence previously [was] unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.’” Hayes Fam. Tr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th
Cir. 2017) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). Rule
59(e) motions are “not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that
could have been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
The Spence Defendants argue that their thirteenth affirmative defense should stand because
Plaintiff’s use of the Thunderhead Logo (or ‘054 Mark) misrepresents the source of services as
emanating from and/or asserting a continuing connection to the Thunderhead Ranch. Plaintiff
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 572 Filed 10/07/22 Page 2 of 3

3
responds that the Spence Defendants did not raise this argument in their initial briefing and, even
if they did, the argument lacks merit. Although sympathetic to the Spence Defendants’ views, the
Court agrees with Plaintiff that the failure to raise this argument in initial briefing precludes
reconsideration here. The Spence Defendants argue manifest injustice, but do not point to any
way in which the Court “misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law” as
originally presented. Id. To be sure, the argument the Spence Defendants raise now (regarding
mispresented connection to Thunderhead Ranch) was available to them, but they did not raise it
when responding to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. That alone is fatal to the
instant motion.
The Court thus DENIES the Spence Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 543).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Entered for the Court
this the 7th day of October, 2022
/s/ Joel M. Carson III .
Joel M. Carson III
United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation
Case 1:20-cv-00080-JMC Document 572 Filed 10/07/22 Page 3 of 3