Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc.

7 Citing cases

  1. Guertin v. Veolia N. Am., LLC

    Case No. 16-cv-12412 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 14, 2017)

    Notably, district courts are increasingly scrutinizing improper use of motions to reconsider. See, e.g., Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 847, 850 (N.D. Ohio 2002) ("Like the court in Nationwide, I have 'noticed a recent marked increase in the filings of motions to reconsider.' Also like that court, I hope that 'publication of this Opinion and Order will advise the bar that the undersigned intends to begin issuing show cause orders as to why sanctions should not be imposed for improper filings of motions to reconsider.'") (quoting Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Pham, 193 F.R.D. 493, 495 (S.D. Miss. 2000)).

  2. NOVOGRODER v. NOM LIMA SHAWNEE, LLC

    Case No. 3:07CV1284 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2011)

    Whether that evidence suffices for a verdict and damage award is for the jury, not me, to determine. It is my long-standing and well-publicized policy to impose sanctions on a party filing an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration. E.g., Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 847, N.D.Ohio 2002). As I have stated on our Court's website: Motions to reconsider are strongly disfavored.

  3. Braithwaite v. Department of Homeland Security, Sec. of

    Case No. 3:08CV1771 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 1, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    I have expressed my strong aversion to motions for reconsideration in published opinions. See, e.g., Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ohio 2002). Plaintiffs' attorney was thus on notice that he would provoke an award of fees in defendant's favor if his motion did not prevail: namely, up to $2,000 to reimburse the non-movant for attorney time expended in responding to the motion. As I stated in Verhoff v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 2007 WL 1362360, *1 (N.D. Ohio):

  4. Gitler v. Ohio

    632 F. Supp. 2d 722 (N.D. Ohio 2009)   Cited 7 times
    Discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1927, citations omitted

    It was unreasonable for Gitler to ask me to reconsider dismissing her case. She views the law not as it is, but what she mistakenly believes it ought to be. I, furthermore, have made it known that I generally do not take motions to reconsider at all favorably. See, e.g., The Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F.Supp.2d 847, 850 (N.D.Ohio 2002). Gitler's actions are vexatious because she incessantly files motions pursuing a claim that is decidedly meritless.

  5. Verhoff v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

    Case No. 3:05CV7277 (N.D. Ohio May. 7, 2007)

    My strong abhorrence to motions for reconsideration has been expressed in published opinions. See, e.g., Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F.Supp.2d 847 (N.D. Ohio 2002). Defendant's attorney was clearly aware of the risk he was taking that he would provoke an award of fees in plaintiff's favor if his motion did not prevail. Under normal circumstances, to cut short sideshow litigation such as this concerning fee awards, I usually include an award of fees for $2,000 in an order denying a motion to reconsider.

  6. Verhoff v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

    Case No. 3:05CV7277 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 23, 2007)

    I have made clear in the past that "counsel who in the future file unfounded, unmerited, and unsuccessful motions for reconsideration simply because they disagree with a ruling, decision, or order should expect to be to be sanctioned to the full extent permitted under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927." Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F.Supp.2d 847, 850 (N.D.Ohio 2002). Defendant's motion under Rule 60(b) is without merit and should never have been brought.

  7. Shollenbarger v. Planes Moving Storage

    Case No. 1:03-cv-112-TSH (S.D. Ohio Sep. 27, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    Where, as here, "the [plaintiffs] view the law in a light contrary to that of this Court, [plaintiffs'] proper recourse is not by way of a motion for reconsideration but an appeal to the Sixth Circuit." The Andersons, Inc. v. Consol, Inc., 208 F. Supp.2d 847, 849 (N.D. Ohio 2002) (citing Dana Corp., 764 F.2d at 489). As for plaintiffs' argument that this Court improperly granted judgment as a matter of law with respect to plaintiffs' disparate impact claims, the Court likewise finds that plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is without merit.