OPINION & ORDER South Pacific Shipping Co. Ltd. And Ecuadorian Line Inc.1 bring this motion under Rules 52(b) and 59(e) to amend this Court’s January 18, 2019 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Dkt. No. 119. For the reasons given below, those motions are DENIED. I. BACKGROUND The Court assumes the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of this case. In short, the parties had a contract under which South Pacific’s ships would arrive at the terminal operated by Red Hook Container Terminal LLC (“Red Hook”) and Red Hook would provide stevedoring and other terminal services. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the “Judgment”), Dkt. No. 119, at 7. South Pacific kept equipment at Red Hook’s terminal, specifically seventy-two refrigerated containers, seventy chassis, and forty-six portable generator units, which the Court will refer to as “the Equipment.” Id. at 7. At that time, South Pacific owned or leased the Equipment. Id. at 7-8. In November of 2013, South Pacific’s vessels called on Red Hook’s terminal for the last time. Id. at 9-10. Citing unpaid fees, Red Hook placed a “terminal hold” on the Equipment, refusing to release it until Red Hook was paid what it considered it was owed. Id. at 11-12. On February 27, 2015 Red Hook filed a complaint for breach of contract against South Pacific. Dkt. No. 1. On April 15, 2015, South Pacific filed an answer, along with counterclaims for conversion and breach of contract. Dkt. No. 5. Beginning February 6, 2018, this Court held a two-day bench trial. On January 18, 2019, this Court issued its Judgment and judgment was entered on January 23. Dkt. Nos. 119 & 120. As is relevant here, the Court found in favor of South Pacific on its conversion counterclaim and awarded South Pacific the full value of the Equipment at the time of conversion, along with interest. Id. at 41. On January 31, 2019, Red Hook filed an appeal of the Court’s Judgment. Dkt. No. 121. On February 19, 2019, South Pacific filed a motion to amend the Court’s Judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e). Dkt. No. 130. Red Hook then filed an opposition to South Pacific’s motion and South Pacific replied. Dkt. Nos. 135 & 136. II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b), a court “may amend its findings-or make additional findings-and may amend the judgment accordingly.” “A party moving pursuant to Rule 52(b) may seek to correct manifest errors of law or fact.” Soberman v. Groff Studios Corp., No. 99-cv-1005 (DLC), 2000 WL 1253211, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2000) (quoting United States v. Local 1804-1, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 831 F.Supp. 167, 169 (S.D.N.Y.1993), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Carson, 52 F.3d 1173 (2d Cir. 1995)). However, “[i]t is not the purpose of Rule 52(b) to permit parties to ‘relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits.’” Id. (quoting Local 1804-1, 831 F.Supp. at 169). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court may “alter or amend judgment to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” ING Global v. United Parcel Serv. Oasis Supply Corp., 757 F.3d 92, 96 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Schwartz v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 539 F.3d 135, 153 (2d Cir.2008)). “Applying this standard, a district court should provide relief under Rule 59(e) only in rare cases.” Tse v. New York Univ., No. 10-cv-7207 (DAB), 2016 WL 10907032, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2016) (citing United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 123 (2d Cir. 2009)). “[A] judgment in a civil case does not constitute ‘manifest injustice’ where the movant’s arguments for relief ‘were available to the [party] below and [the party] proffer[s] no reason for [its] failure to raise the arguments.’” Corsair Special Situations Fund, L.P. v. Nat’l Res., 595 F. App’x 40, 44 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Johns-Manville Corp., 759 F.3d 206, 219 (2d Cir. 2014)). Rule 52(b) and 59(e) are accordingly governed by similar and similarly demanding standards. See, e.g., Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 10-cv-4518 (KBF), 2013 WL 2246790, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2013) (citing cases). Nonetheless, the two rules have “distinct applications” as “Rule 52(b) provides a method to dispute underlying facts that resulted in faulty factual findings or conclusions of law based on those facts,” while “Rule 59(e) provides for a broad request for reconsideration of the judgment itself.” Endo Pharm. Inc. v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, No. 12-cv-8060 (TPG), 2016 WL 1732751, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016). III. DISCUSSION South Pacific contends that after the Court issued its Judgment, it sought the return of the Equipment from Red Hook, but Red Hook refused. Dkt. No. 131, at 2-3. Red Hook does not dispute that it will not release the Equipment. In light of this, South Pacific requests that the Court amend its Judgment by either:(A) ordering Red Hook to release the Equipment and finding affirmatively that Red Hook has no right to possess the Equipment, or (B) altering the measure of conversion damages from the full value of the Equipment at the time of conversion to the amount of money South Pacific paid to the lessors of the Equipment through December of 2016. The Court addresses each of these requests in turn. A. It Was Neither Clear Error nor Manifest Injustice for the Court to Not Order the Release of the Equipment South Pacific first argues that unless Red Hook is ordered to return the Equipment South Pacific will either be required to continue paying per diem lease charges on the Equipment or pay the lessors a stipulated value for the Equipment under the relevant leases. This, South Pacific contends, would work a manifestly unjust result. Dkt. No. 131 at 3. This argument fails for two reasons. First, South Pacific is improperly attempting to request a new form of relief on a Rule 59(e) and 52(b) motion. Second, South Pacific does not offer sufficient evidence in the record showing that it was clear error or manifestly unjust to deny it the recovery of both the full value of the Equipment and the Equipment itself. 1. South Pacific Cannot Request New Forms of Relief on Rule 59(e) and 52(b) Motions As an initial matter, South Pacific’s motion impermissibly attempts to raise new arguments that it could have presented at trial. Rule 59(e) and 52(b) motions “should not be used ‘to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.’” In re Salomon Analyst Winstar Litig., No. 02-cv-6171 (GEL), 2006 WL 510526, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2006) (quoting Anglo-Iberia Underwriting Mgmt. Co. v. Lodderhose, 282 F.Supp.2d 126, 131 (S.D.N.Y.2003)). Here, the first and only time South Pacific requested that Red Hook be required to return the Equipment was in the counterclaim complaint. Dkt. No. 5, at 12. After that, the argument then disappears. In the Joint Pretrial submissions, South Pacific only stated that it sought monetary damages, along with fees and costs. Dkt. No. 70 at 21-22. Similarly, there is no mention of ordering the release of the Equipment in South Pacific’s pretrial or post-trial briefing. Dkt. No. 68 at 32; Dkt. No. 69 at 25; Dkt. No. 112
