From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. City of Plymouth

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
May 27, 2010
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-205 JVB (N.D. Ind. May. 27, 2010)

Opinion

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-205 JVB.

May 27, 2010


OPINION AND ORDER


On April 19, 2009, Defendants City of Plymouth and John Weir filed a motion to reconsider the Court's denial of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Although motions for reconsideration are not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Seventh Circuit and this district apply Rule 59(e) standards to these motions. Wagner v. Nutrasweet Co., 873 F. Supp. 87, 101 — 02 (N.D. Ill. 1994); see also Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 n. 9 (N.D. Ill. 1988). The Seventh Circuit has discussed the role of the motion to reconsider:

A motion for reconsideration performs a valuable function where the Court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension. A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court.
Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).

However useful motions for reconsideration may be, the problems that justify such motions "rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." Id. Motions for reconsideration "are not at the disposal of parties who want to `rehash' old arguments . . . and such motions are not appropriate vehicles for introducing evidence that could have been produced prior to the entry of judgment or for tendering new legal theories for the first time." Wagner, 873 F. Supp. at 101 — 02 (citations omitted).

In their motion to reconsider, Defendants do not present any new facts that were not available earlier nor any new law so as to compel a reconsideration of the Court's decision. Nor have Defendants shown that the Court has patently misunderstood them, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented by the parties. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants City of Plymouth and John Weir's motion to reconsider (DE 123).

SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Miller v. City of Plymouth

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
May 27, 2010
CASE NO. 2:09-CV-205 JVB (N.D. Ind. May. 27, 2010)
Case details for

Miller v. City of Plymouth

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN D. MILLER and JAMILA D. MILLER, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PLYMOUTH…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

Date published: May 27, 2010

Citations

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-205 JVB (N.D. Ind. May. 27, 2010)

Citing Cases

Young v. Lake Cnty. Treasurer

(quoting Caisse Nationale De Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (7th Cir. 1996)). See…

Van Dalsen v. Costello

. See also, e.g., Miller v. City of Plymouth, 2010 WL 2194842, at *1 (N.D. Ind. May 27, 2010).…