ORDER

WILLIAM Q. HAYES, District Judge.

The matter before the Court is Plaintiffs' "Motion for Court to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59, 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." (ECF No. 46).

I. Background

On February 10, 2012, Plaintiffs Princess Samantha Kennedy and Adam Clayton Urich, proceeding pro se, filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendant Paramount Pictures Corporation. (ECF No. 24). The First Amended Complaint alleged a single cause of action for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101. Id.

On March 27, 2013, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 43). The Court found that "any similarities between Plaintiff Kennedy's works and Titanic were, at most, `[o]rdinary phrases,' `stock scenes containing little in the way of original expression,' and/or `scènes à faire, which flow naturally from generic plot-lines.'" Id. at 8 (quoting Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm't Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1976 (9th Cir. 2006)). The Court found, as a matter of law, that "Titanic is not substantially similar to any protectable elements of Plaintiff Kennedy's works, and Defendant did not `cop[y] . . . constituent elements of [Plaintiff Kennedy's] work that are original.'" Id. at 9 (quoting Fiest Publ'ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991)). The Court denied as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the First Amended Complaint and Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply, and dismissed with prejudice the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 43). The Clerk of the Court closed this case on March 27, 2013. (ECF No. 44).

On April 9, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59, 59(e). (ECF No. 46). On April 30, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition. (ECF No. 48). On May 16, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 49).

II. Discussion

A district court may alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if: 1) it is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; 2) it is necessary to present newly discovered evidence; 3) it is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) the amendment is justified by an intervening change in the controlling law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Heron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). A Rule 59(e) motion "may 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." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quotation omitted). A Rule 59(e) motion is "an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotation omitted).

Plaintiffs acknowledge that their "motion raises the same argument as the earlier motion." (ECF No. 49 at 4). Plaintiffs contend that there are similarities between Plaintiff Kennedy's works and Titanic. (ECF No. 46 at 9-10, 14-16; see also ECF No. 49-1 at 20-49, ECF No. 49-2, ECF No. 49-3 at 1-69). Plaintiffs cite to the same or similar examples as Plaintiffs cited in opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Compare ECF No. 29 at 15, with ECF No. 46 at 14, and ECF No. 49-1 at 52-62). A Rule 59(e) motion "should not be used to ask the Court to rethink what is had already thought through." Garrett v. Ruiz, No. 11cv2540 IEG (WVG), 2013 WL 2481535, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)). The Court has reviewed the submissions of the parties and finds Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rule 59(e).

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for the Court to Alter or Amend the Judgment is DENIED. (ECF No. 46).