Martin v. Dupont Flooring Systems, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Hannah v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-01361 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jun. 2, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    "In order to prevent 'wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided,' a motion for reconsideration is granted only in a narrow range of circumstances." Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:01-cv-02189 (SRU), 2004 WL 1171208, at *1 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (quoting Schonberger v. Serchuk, 742 F. Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)). The major grounds justifying reconsideration are: "(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."

  2. Delgado v. City of Stamford

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-cv-01735 (VAB) (D. Conn. Jan. 7, 2016)   Cited 2 times
    Disregarding the defendant's argument in part because the plaintiff cited no controlling authority requiring reconsideration

    " Id. "In order to prevent 'wasteful repetition of arguments already briefed, considered and decided,' a motion for reconsideration is granted only in a narrow range of circumstances." Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:01-cv-02189 (SRU), 2004 WL 1171208, at *1 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (quoting Schonberger v. Serchuk, 742 F. Supp. 108, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 1990)). The major grounds justifying reconsideration are: "(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice."

  3. Allegrino v. Sachetti

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:14-cv-01865 (VAB) (D. Conn. Nov. 19, 2015)

    " Id. "The only permissible grounds on which to grant a motion for reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., Inc., No. Civ. A. 3:01-cv-02189 (SRU), 2004 WL 1171208, at *1 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (citing Doe v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)). III. DISCUSSION

  4. Day v. Benisovich

    CASE NO. 3:09CV1079 (RNC) (D. Conn. May. 26, 2010)

    "The only permissible grounds on which to grant a motion for reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., No. 3:01 CV 2189 (SRU), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373, *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (internal citations omitted). None of these factors have been satisfied.

  5. Ostigny v. Camp

    CASE NO. 3:07CV1777(RNC) (D. Conn. Dec. 10, 2009)

    "The only permissible grounds on which to grant a motion for reconsideration are: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice." Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., 3:01 CV 2189(SRU), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9373, *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (internal citations omitted). The Motion for Reconsideration, doc. #58, is DENIED.

  6. Love v. United Parcel Service

    2:04-cv-964 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 28, 2006)   Cited 1 times
    Explaining that a plaintiff's "subjective belief that a transfer is less desirable or demeaning cannot suffice" to show an adverse employment action

    While downtown offered more potential, those potential customers were more difficult to penetrate. See Martin v. Dupont Flooring Sys., 2004 WL 1171208 *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2004) (requiring evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that earning potential was materially diminished). Love has not proven that her bonuses were markedly higher in the downtown territory.