Taylor v. Principi

Full title: YOLANDA TAYLOR, Plaintiff, vs. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans…

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Mar 4, 2004

Case No. 02-4083-JAR (D. Kan. Mar. 4, 2004)

Opinion

Case No. 02-4083-JAR

March 4, 2004

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JULIE ROBINSON, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 44) of the Court's Memorandum and Order Denying Summary Judgment on two of Plaintiffs claims (Doc. 42) and Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 45). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.

A motion for reconsideration provides the court with an opportunity to correct "manifest errors of law or fact and to review newly discovered evidence."¹ Appropriate circumstances for reconsideration include situations in which the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts, or mistakenly has decided an issue not presented for determination.² A losing party should not use a motion for reconsideration as a vehicle to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected.³ Nor does a party's failure to present her strongest case in the first instance entitle her to a second chance in the form of a motion for reconsideration.⁴ The party seeking reconsideration bears the burden to demonstrate a change in the law, the availability of new evidence, or that reconsideration is necessary to prevent manifest injustice.⁵ The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is committed to a court's discretion.⁶

1 Sac and Fox Nation of Mo. v. La Faver, 993 F. Supp. 1374, 1375 (D. Kan. 1998).

2 Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F. Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1990).

3 Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994).

4 Sac and Fox Nation, 993 F. Supp. at 1375-76.

5 Id. at 1376.

6 Hancock v. Oklahoma City, 857 F.3d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).

Having reviewed the arguments contained in Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration, the Court finds no reasons for amending or altering its previous Memorandum and Order (Doc. 42). Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court misapprehended the underlying facts, or committed a manifest error of law. Additionally, Defendant fails to demonstrate that the evidence it relies upon in its Motion for Reconsideration is truly newly discovered evidence. Rather, Defendant's motion is an obvious attempt to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected by this Court.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 44) shall be DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.