Opinion
Case No. 01 C 564
January 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant, County of Cook ("the County"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), moves for reconsideration of this Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 16, 2002, denying the County's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III of Plaintiff s, Capital City Financial Group, Inc.'s ("Capital City"), complaint. For the reasons that follow, the County's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact or presenting newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law. Cosgrove v. Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998). Reconsideration is appropriate when "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." Spearman Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp.2d 943, 945 (N.D. Ill. 2001) (quoting Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). A motion for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new legal theories for the first time, to raise legal arguments that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion, or to present evidence that could have been adduced during the pendency of the original motion. Publishers Res., Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publ'ns, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985); In re Oil Spill by the "Amoco Cadiz" off the Coast of France on March 16, 1978, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Movants should not use a motion for reconsideration to rehash arguments previously rejected by the court, Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 841, 844 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
ANALYSIS
The County requests that this Court reconsider its decision of October 16, 2002. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court denied the County's and Capital City's Motions for Summary Judgment as to Count III, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Capital City's reliance on the misrepresentations of Provident Hospital's Associate Administrator of Finance, Earl Bell, was justified. The County argues that reconsideration is proper because the Court based its denial of the County's Motion for Summary Judgment on the following manifest errors of law and fact: the Court's determination that (1) Bell's representations were binding on the County, (2) the factored accounts receivable from Swerbeh, Ltd. created a genuine issue of material fact, and (3) the County asserted that there were material issues of fact with respect to Bell's knowledge.
Each of the arguments that the County asserts were raised in its own Motion for Summary Judgment and in its opposition to Capital City's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court considered all of the issues raised by the County at that time.
To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, the movant must present
either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. . . A "manifest error" is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." . . . Contrary to this standard, [the County's] motion merely t[akes] umbrage with the [C]ourt's ruling and rehash[es] old arguments."Oto v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The County's motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that this Court disregarded, misapplied, or failed to recognize controlling precedent and, therefore, is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's, County of Cook's, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is denied.