JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff Stockport Mountain Corporation LLC's motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 66) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The parties briefed the issues and the matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny Stockport's motion.
This motion arises from the court's August 27, 2013 Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Norcross Wildlife Foundation, Inc. (hereinafter "Norcross") on Plaintiff Stockport Mountain Corporation LLC's (hereinafter "Stockport") claim for declaratory relief. (See Doc. 65, Mem. & Order dated Aug. 27, 2013). At issue was whether the parties' Conservation Easement (hereinafter "the Easement") prohibited or permitted certain activities and uses of the property, including, among other things, "[i]ndustrial or commercial uses of any kind."
On March 18, 2011, Stockport ultimately filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment that oil and natural gas exploration and drilling via surface wells was permitted by the Easement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. , the Declaratory Judgment Act. On March 15, 2012, after the court denied both Norcross' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and Stockport's cross-motion for Summary Judgment, Norcross filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the complaint in which it asserted a Counterclaim against Stockport for a declaration that the Easement prohibits natural gas extraction via surface drilling. (Doc. 36, Answer ¶ 75). Norcross's Counterclaim sought: (1) a declaration that the conservation easement prohibits the extraction of oil and natural gas by surface methods through the drilling of wells and (2) the award of attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, costs of suit, and any other costs of enforcement incurred by Norcross pursuant to the Section 7.2 "costs of enforcement" provision of the Easement.
The parties engaged in discovery for eight months, and, at the close of discovery, Norcross filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 46, Mot. for Summ. J.). In its motion, Norcross requested that the court award summary judgment in its favor on both Stockport's causes of action and on Norcross's Counterclaim. Norcross filed a proposed order requesting that judgment be entered in its favor on both Stockport's claim and on Norcross' Counterclaim and that Norcross be awarded, inter alia , reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.
By its memorandum and order dated August 27, 2013, the court: (1) granted Norcross' motion for summary judgment; (2) entered judgment in favor of Norcross declaring that the easement prohibits the extraction of oil and natural gas by surface methods through the drilling of wells; and (3) granted Norcross' request for reasonable costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 7.2 of the Easement.
On September 24, 2013, Stockport filed the instant motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), seeking reconsideration of the aspect of the judgment granting attorneys' fees to Norcross. (Doc. 66). The parties then briefed the issues bringing the case to its present posture.
Stockport seeks relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) provides that motions to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the entry of judgment. Under Rule 59(e), a party may move to alter or amend a judgment "to correct clear error [of law] or prevent manifest injustice.'" Pediatrix Screening, Inc. v. TeleChem Int'l, Inc. , 602 F.3d 541, 546 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting North River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co. , 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). A motion to alter or amend judgment is subject to the "sound discretion of the district court." Cureton v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n , 252 F.3d 267, 272-73 (3d Cir.2001). The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki , 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985); Max's Seafood Cafe ex rel. Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999). The movant must demonstrate one of three grounds for such a motion to be granted: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or to prevent manifest injustice. Max's Seafood Cafe , 176 F.3d at 677.
In the instant motion, Stockport contends that the court's award of attorneys' fees represents a clear error of law. Specifically, Stockport argues that the court erred in granting Norcross' request for attorneys' fees because Norcross waived its entitlement to such an award by failing to adequately raise the request in its summary judgment motion and supporting brief. Additionally, Stockport asserts that the court erred by failing to apply the "American Rule" to preclude the award of attorneys' fees to Norcross in a declaratory judgment action that merely asked the court to interpret the Easement rather than enforce its terms. Norcross argues that its request for attorneys' fees was adequately raised and that Stockport was not deprived of the opportunity to brief the issue. The court addresses these issues in turn.
I. Request for Attorneys' Fees Not Adequately Raised
Stockport first argues that the court erred in granting Norcross' request for reasonable costs and attorneys' fees because Norcross failed to adequately raise the issue of attorneys' fees in its summary judgment motion and supporting brief. Stockport contends that Norcross' failure to adequately raise and brief the issue of attorneys' fees unfairly precluded Stockport from presenting any counter-argument on the issue in its opposition brief. Norcross asserts that its request for attorneys' fees was adequately raised by way of its Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, which each contended that summary judgment be granted in its favor on both Stockport's cause of action and Norcross's Counterclaim. Additionally, Norcross asserts that Stockport had multiple opportunities to brief the issue prior to the court's August 27, 2013 ...