Opinion
Civil File No. 06-1497 (MJD/LIB).
October 22, 2010
Andrew B. Mohraz, David A. Tonini, and Timothy M. Reynolds, Holme Roberts Owen, LLP; Felicia J. Boyd, Barnes Thornburg, LLP; and Matthew J. Oppenheim, Oppenheim Group, LLP; counsel for Plaintiffs.
Joe Sibley and K. A. D. Camara, Camara Sibley, LLP, and Brant D. Penney and Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf Blanchfield, counsel for Defendant.
Adam D. Kirschner, United States Department of Justice, and Gregory G. Brooker, Assistant United States Attorney, for Intervenor United States of America.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Remittitur Order. [Docket No. 405] Defendant requests that this Court reconsider its January 22, 2010 Order ordering remittitur and declining to reach the issue of the constitutionality of the original damages award. [Docket No. 366]
The district court's decision on a motion for reconsideration rests within its discretion. Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 413 (8th Cir. 1988).
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.Id. at 414 (citation omitted).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the parties' submissions and its January 22 Order and concludes that the January 22 Order contains no manifest errors of law or fact.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein , IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Remittitur Order [Docket No. 405] is DENIED.
Dated: October 22, 2010