been given the right to purchase under federal law. This inconsistency in theCourt’s ruling should be cured.
“A district court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant amotion to alter or amend judgment.”
B.M. ex rel. Miller v. South Callaway R-II Sch. Dist.
, 2012 WL 5818001, 1 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Fed. R.Civ. P. 59(e));
see also United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d930, 933 (8th Cir.2006). Rule 59(e) motions “serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discoveredevidence.”
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist.,
440 F.3d at 933. “The purpose of theRule is to allow the district court ‘the power to rectify its own mistakes in theperiod immediately following the entry of judgment.’”
Norman v. Arkansas Dep’t of Educ.,
79 F.3d 748, 750 (8th Cir.1996)).“A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend must show: ‘1) an interveningchange in controlling law; 2) the availability of new evidence not availablepreviously; or 3) the need to correct a clear error of law or preventmanifest injustice.’”
, 2012 WL 5818001, 1 (quoting
Bannister v. Armontrout,
807 F.Supp. 516, 556 (W.D. Mo. 1991)). In this case, defendantrequests that the Court alter or amend its judgment to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.
Case: 4:12-cv-02354-AGF Doc. #: 76-1 Filed: 04/11/13 Page: 3 of 11 PageID #: 1163