Roberts v. Kmart Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ANITA ROBERTS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-90 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Eugenio Geigel-Simounet, Esq. Lee J. Rohn, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration (Docket No. 61). Plaintiff filed an opposition thereto, and the time for Defendant to file a reply has expired. Local Rule 7.3, which governs motions for reconsideration, provides that “a motion to reconsider shall be based on: (1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence, or; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” LRCi 7.3. Here, Defendant does not point to a change in controlling law or the availability of new evidence to support its Motion for Reconsideration. Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 69 Filed: 06/29/10 Page 1 of 2 Roberts v. Kmart Corp. …
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_08-cv-00090/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_08-cv-00090-3.pdf
SHA-256 3aeadeb941918083e5116a8e674f1214855f21dacd317074680e8868b85bc634
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-3aeadeb94191
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 ANITA ROBERTS, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 1:08-cv-90 v. 5 5 KMART CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Eugenio Geigel-Simounet, Esq. Lee J. Rohn, Esq. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration (Docket No. 61). Plaintiff filed an opposition thereto, and the time for Defendant to file a reply has expired. Local Rule 7.3, which governs motions for reconsideration, provides that “a motion to reconsider shall be based on: (1) intervening change in controlling law; (2) availability of new evidence, or; (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” LRCi 7.3. Here, Defendant does not point to a change in controlling law or the availability of new evidence to support its Motion for Reconsideration. Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 69 Filed: 06/29/10 Page 1 of 2 Roberts v. Kmart Corp. 1:08-cv-90 Order Denying Defendant’s Motion For Reconsideration In its Motion for Reconsideration, Defendant merely restates the position it took in its opposition to the original motion for sanctions. In both its opposition and its motion for reconsideration, Defendant claims it already has supplemented its responses to the interrogatories and that Defendant has been working on supplementation of documents. As this Court has stated previously, “[d]issatisfaction with the Court’s ruling is not a proper basis for reconsideration.” Berrios v. Hovic, 2005-cv-0192, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68163 (D.V.I. 2008) (citation omitted). See also Bluebeard’s Castle, Inc. v. Delmar Marketing, Inc., 32 V.I. 278, 279 (D.V.I. 1995) (“Since plaintiff’s arguments merely rehash those proffered in its opposition to defendant’s original motion. . . the Court will deny the plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.”). Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 61) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: June 29, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:08-cv-00090-DWA-GWC Document #: 69 Filed: 06/29/10 Page 2 of 2