Prentice et al v. OfficeMax North America, Inc. et al
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX BENJAMIN PRENTICE AND SOPHIA ) FRANCIS, ) No. 9-5 ) Plaintiffs, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER OF COURT Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration ofthis Court's decision to decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs I state law claims. Plaintiff posits that the decision prejudices Plaintiffs due to the backlog in the state court. Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly, "[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in finality ofjudgments. " Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.,. 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995). The purpose ofa motion for reconsideration is "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe v.,Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_09-cv-00005/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_09-cv-00005-1.pdf
SHA-256 269cb25d5f361758f3bdf3ca9961d7648eafb59d4b97679aef03921ba948453a
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-269cb25d5f36
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX BENJAMIN PRENTICE AND SOPHIA ) FRANCIS, ) No. 9-5 ) Plaintiffs, v. OFFICEMAX NORTH AMERICA, Defendant. ORDER OF COURT Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration ofthis Court's decision to decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiffs I state law claims. Plaintiff posits that the decision prejudices Plaintiffs due to the backlog in the state court. Motions for reconsideration are granted sparingly, "[b]ecause federal courts have a strong interest in finality ofjudgments. " Continental Cas. Co. v. Diversified Indus., Inc.,. 884 F. Supp. 937, 943 (E.D.Pa. 1995). The purpose ofa motion for reconsideration is "to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Max's Seafood Cafe v.,Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir.1999). Particularly as many of the state law questions at issue are relatively unsettled and best left for the state court, Plaintiffs have not persuaded me that the slow pace ofVirgin Islands litigation warrants reconsideration ofmy decision. 1 Case: 1:09-cv-00005-DWA-DWA Document #: 210 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 1 of 2 AND NOW, this I t ~y of April, 2012, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration [No. 207: is DENIED. BY THE COURT: c4v.ut.:AJ ~~, Donetta W. Ambrose, Senior Judge 2 Case: 1:09-cv-00005-DWA-DWA Document #: 210 Filed: 04/16/12 Page 2 of 2