DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, United States District Judge
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants' Motion to Amend Final Judgment Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (DE 181) and Defendants' Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order (DE 183), both filed August 30, 2002. The Court has reviewed the record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
This was a jury trial case, and on August 14, 2002, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. In the Court's Final Judgment (DE 180), Plaintiffs recovery was explained as follows:
Lost wages and expenses to the date of trial: $105,000
Lost wages and expenses in the future (reduced to present value): $400,000
Past physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life: $200,000
Future physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience and loss of capacity for enjoyment of life: $300,000
And the jury having found that Plaintiff's recovery is to be reduced by his 40% comparative negligence, judgment against defendants Raytheon Company and Range Systems Engineering Company in the amount of $603,000.
Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a trial court to entertain a motion to alter or amend a judgment provided that such motion is made within ten days after the entry of the judgment. Here, Final Judgment in this action was entered by this Court on August 27, 2002, and the present motion was filed on August 30, 2002; accordingly, the motion is timely. "A [Rule 59(e)] motion to alter or amend a judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence." Mutual Serv. Corp. v. Spaulding, 871 F. Supp. 324, 328 (N.D. Ill. 1994), citing Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986). According to the Supreme Court, the "draftsmen [of this Rule] had a clear and narrow aim. . . . [T]he Rule was adopted to `mak[e] clear that the district court possesses the power' to rectify its own mistakes in the period immediately following the entry of judgment." White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445, 450 (1982) (citing Advisory Committee's notes). "Such a motion is therefore appropriate in cases where the court has based an order on a factual error." Norman v. Arkansas Dep't of Educ., 79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1996). However, "[t]he decision to alter or amend judgment is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of discretion." Lawson v. Singletary, 85 F.3d 502, 507 (11th Cir. 1996), quoting American Home Assur. Co. v. Glenn Estess Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1238-39 (11th Cir. 1985).
As Defendants have pointed out, the final judgment did not reflect a setoff against Plaintiffs recovery in the amount of $37,377.71 for past lost wages that have already been recovered. It is clear that Plaintiff cannot recover twice for the same maritime injury, and as such, this Amended Final Judgment.will reflect that setoff.
With regard to Defendants' Motion for Clarification of Judgment Order, it is correct that the Court's Final Judgment was not intended to deny as moot Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial (DE 178). The amended final judgment will vacate the Court's final judgment with regard to that motion.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court's Order of Final Judgment (DE 180) is AMENDED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs recovery after the 40% reduction for comparative negligence is in the amount of $603,000. From that amount, Plaintiffs award of damages is offset in the amount of $37,377.71 for past lost wages that have already been recovered. Plaintiff shall have judgment against defendants Raytheon Company and Range systems Engineering Company in the amount of
$565,622.21.
2. The Court's Order of Final Judgment (DE 180), is
VACATED IN PART insofar as it denied as moot Defendants' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for a New Trial (DE 178).
DONE AND ORDERED.