granting Plaintiff this second chance. v. Plaintiff’s Post-Trial Submissions are Inadmissible I am persuaded by Defendants’ arguments on this question.. Under the John v. Sotheby’s test, Plaintiffs lack of diligence is a result of his own conduct; the evidence, if admitted, would be highly prejudicial to Defendants, and the interests of justice do not support the admission of the evidence. For these reasons, I find that all evidence submitted by Plaintiff post-trial is inadmissible, and therefore the court will not consider this evidence. B. Ownership of the Foreshore: Unless specifically granted, states are the owners of all lands subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (i.e. the foreshore). Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 476, 108 S.Ct. 791, 98 L.Ed.2d 877 (1988) (<HOLDING>). While conducting a state-by-state analysis of
holding that state ownership of submerged lands remains subject to congress paramount power over navigable waters under the commerce clause holding that sovereign immunity barred suit by indian tribe seeking to compel state officials to turn over ownership and control of disputed lands and waters recognizing public or official writings exception and noting that the same rule prevails in the courts of all of the states of this union holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation holding that longstanding precedents  hold that the states upon entry into the union received ownership of all lands under waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide