Opinion
3:23-cv-5137
12-18-2023
TONY AND BARBARA PATRINICOLA, Plaintiff, v. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 76.) Having reviewed the Motion, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request.
Plaintiffs' request the Court reconsider its denial of Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of the Court's Decision. (Dkt. No. 74.) Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension sought to extend the timeline to send the Court material and present their case before the Court. (Id.) The Court previously requested two documents from Plaintiffs, and gave them until November 27, 2023 to provide them. (Dkt. No. 69.) Plaintiffs did not provide the two documents, but instead asked for an extension to present their entire case before the Court. (Dk.t No. 74.) The Court denied this request as it was not what the Court had requested in the first place and no hearing was currently scheduled for the Plaintiffs to present their case. (Dkt. No. 74.)
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Rule 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. Because Plaintiffs have not shown the Court denied them an extension in manifest error, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.