In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation

1 Citing case

  1. Klaassen v. Univ. of Kan. Sch. of Med.

    Case No. 13-CV-2561-DDC-KGS (D. Kan. May. 15, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    In his Motion for Reconsideration, plaintiff argues that the University of Kansas had adopted the 1940 Statement in other ways, but the Court need not consider this argument because plaintiff raises it for the first time here. See In re Urethane Antitrust Litig., No. 04-1616-JWL, 2009 WL 2777825, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 28, 2009) (citing Welch v. Centex Home Equity Co., 323 F. Supp. 2d 1087, 1090 (D. Kan. 2004) ("Reconsideration is not warranted where the movant is simply raising new arguments that could have been presented originally.")). Plaintiff also argues that "KUMC's Handbook, standing alone, provides sufficient grounds to establish a property interest.