ORDER AND REASONS

KURT D. ENGELHARDT, District Jugde.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration" of the Court's prior Order and Reasons denying its motion for security.1 For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Rec. Doc.133) is DENIED.

Plaintiff submitted its motion for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Relief under Rule 59(e) may be appropriate (1) where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) where the movant presents newly discovered evidence that previously was unavailable; (3) to correct a manifest error of law or fact, or (4) to prevent manifest injustice. Schiller v. Physicians Res. Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003); see also, e.g., Rosenblatt v. United Way of Greater Houston, 607 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir. 2010); Marseilles Homeowners Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Fidelity Nat'l Ins. Co., 542 F.3d 1053, 1058 (5th Cir. 2008). With respect to evidence not previously presented, the Court also considers: (1) the reasons for the moving party's omission; (2) the importance of the omitted evidence; (3) whether the evidence previously was available; and (4) the likelihood that the non-moving party will suffer unfair prejudice if the matter is re-opened for consideration. Lavespere v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 174 (5th Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (5th Cir.1994)). Id. at 174. Such a motion is not to be used, however, to simply re-hash evidence, legal theories, or arguments that were or should have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment. Lines v. Fair Ins. Co., 2010 WL 4338636, *1 (E.D. La. 10/21/2010)(Engelhardt, J.) (citing Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir.1990)); Peterson, 2002 WL 1268404, at *1 (Rule 59(e) should not be used to re-litigate prior matters that have been resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction).

Considering the parties' submissions and, importantly, the record of this matter, the Court declines to reconsider its prior denial of Plaintiff's motion for security. Plaintiff's motion urges the Court to revisit its determination of whether delivery, for purposes of transferring title pursuant to §4-2-401 of the Arkansas Code Annotated, of the cargo aboard the M/V GLACIER BAY had occurred as of the date Plaintiff attached it in New Orleans.2 The parties, however, have already presented these issues to the Court, to some extent, a number of times both in writing and orally.

Specifically, as set forth in more detail in Defendants' opposition memorandum (Rec. Doc. 134), the Court has considered Plaintiff's initial motion for attachment, Defendants' motions for vacatur of that attachment, held a status conference and oral argument regarding the motions for vacatur, addressed two motions to stay the orders of vacatur pending appeal, heard oral argument regarding motions to dismiss, as well as a motion to reconsider the vacatur, and granted time for discovery.3 Then, following a third oral argument hearing, this time addressed to Plaintiff's motion for security and Defendants' motions for summary judgment,4 the Court ordered the parties to submit supplemental memoranda regarding the effect of § 2-401 of the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C.") relative to Plaintiff's request that Defendants be required to post security. The parties complied; each side submitted original and reply memoranda.5 Thereafter, after carefully considering the parties' written submissions, as well as their oral arguments, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for security in a nine-page Order and Reasons.6

Now, with its motion for reconsideration, as set forth in its twenty-four page original memorandum and twelve page supplemental memorandum, Plaintiff re-urges points already made in earlier submissions, but also asks the Court to consider "for the first time an in-depth analysis of the ways in which "finding that delivery [of the previously attached cargo] occurred [for purposes of A.C.A. §4-2-401] after [attachment and release of the cargo in] New Orleans is manifestly at odds with the law and the facts."7 Significantly, this "in-depth analysis" includes consideration of several provisions of the UCC, and their purported application to the facts of this matter,8 that Plaintiff had not addressed in its prior submissions despite having had numerous opportunities to do so.

Plaintiff has not presented any compelling argument justifying reconsideration of the Court's ruling on its motion for security. It has not, for instance, pointed to newly discovered evidence that previously was unavailable to it, or pertinent jurisprudence decided since the Court took Plaintiff's motion under submission or made its ruling. Rather, Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of the Court's prior ruling simply to allow it an opportunity to improve upon or provide additional support for its previously asserted arguments regarding disputed legal and factual matters. Rule 59(e) relief, however, is not available for such a purpose. As stated above, Rule 59(e) is not to be used to re-litigate matters previously resolved to the movant's dissatisfaction. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.