DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
758 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
6
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
758 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a motion or a judicial opinion, dated February 5, 2016. It outlines the legal standards for a 'motion to reconsider' in federal court, citing various precedents. The text explains that while not formally recognized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, district courts have inherent discretionary authority to reconsider non-final orders, but the scope for doing so is narrow and limited to specific grounds such as new law, new evidence, or correcting clear error.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Trujillo | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.
|
| Wood | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood.
|
| Wagoner | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Wagoner v. Wagoner.
|
| Christy | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Christy, 739 F.3d at 539.
|
| Phelps | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Phelps v. Hamilton.
|
| Hamilton | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Phelps v. Hamilton.
|
| Does | Litigant |
Mentioned as a party in the case Servants of Paraclete v. Does.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch. | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.
|
| Wagner Equip. Co. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood.
|
| Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co.
|
| Praetorian Ins. Co. | company |
Mentioned as a party in the case Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co.
|
| Servants of Paraclete | organization |
Mentioned as a party in the case Servants of Paraclete v. Does.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00001295).
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in the name of the organization 'Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.'
|
|
|
Appears in legal citations, referring to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
|
Relationships (6)
Parties in the legal case Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.
Parties in the legal case Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood.
Parties in the legal case Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co.
Parties in the legal case Servants of Paraclete v. Does.
Key Quotes (5)
"The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’"Source
— Wagoner v. Wagoner
(Quoted to establish that a 'motion to reconsider' is not a formally recognized motion under federal rules.)
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
Quote #1
"A district court has discretion to revise interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment."Source
— Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch.
(Quoted to explain the court's inherent authority to reconsider non-final orders.)
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
Quote #2
"[w]hen a party seeks to obtain reconsideration of a non-final order, the motion is considered ‘an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment.’"Source
— Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood
(Quoted to define the nature of a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order.)
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
Quote #3
"a motion to reconsider is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.”"Source
— Servants of Paraclete v. Does
(Quoted to describe the improper use of a motion to reconsider.)
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
Quote #4
"[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice."Source
— Servants of Paraclete v. Does
(Quoted to list the specific, limited grounds upon which a motion to reconsider may be granted.)
DOJ-OGR-00001295.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,251 characters)
Case 1:12-cv-00249-MV-LFG Document 3062 Filed 02/05/16 Page 5 of 16
1991) (“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’ Instead, the rules allow a litigant subject to an adverse judgment to file either a motion to alter or amend the judgment . . . or a motion seeking relief from the judgment.”); Trujillo v. Bd. of Educ. of Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“A district court has discretion to revise interlocutory orders prior to entry of final judgment.”). Hence, “[w]hen a party seeks to obtain reconsideration of a non-final order, the motion is considered ‘an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory rulings prior to entry of final judgment.’” Wagner Equip. Co. v. Wood, 289 F.R.D. 347, 349 (D.N.M. 2013) (quoting Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120, 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991)). The Court’s authority, then, is sustained by the pragmatic reality that a “district court should have the opportunity to correct alleged errors in its dispositions.” Christy, 739 F.3d at 539. Consequently, the district court enjoys “considerable discretion in ruling on a motion to reconsider.” Federated Towing & Recovery, LLC v. Praetorian Ins. Co., 283 F.R.D. 644, 651 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997)).
The scope of reconsideration, however, is narrowly cabined and far more limited than in an ordinary appeal. That is, a motion to reconsider is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Rather, “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.
Here, several pieces of previously unavailable evidence justify the request for reconsideration. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. First, when the Court denied Mr.
The scope of reconsideration, however, is narrowly cabined and far more limited than in an ordinary appeal. That is, a motion to reconsider is an “inappropriate vehicle[] to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Rather, “[g]rounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.
Here, several pieces of previously unavailable evidence justify the request for reconsideration. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. First, when the Court denied Mr.
5
DOJ-OGR-00001295
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document