DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JUAN MENDEZ, RENE VARGAS, FRANK 5 ORTIZ, REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, and 5 JAIME GARCIA, 5 2002-CV-0169 5 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 5 5 HOVENSA, L.L.C., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Onik’a Gilliam, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court for consideration upon Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion to Reconsider the Oral Order Allegedly Made During March 31, 2008[,] Settlement Conference (Docket No. 470); Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Entered April 02, 2008 (Docket No. 474); and, Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) [sic] to File Sworn Testimony in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion For Reconsideration of Judge Savage’s Oral Order (Docket No. 502). Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 515 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 1 of 3 Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C 2002-CV-0169 Order Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order issued by a judge or magistrate judge of this Court based upon “1. …
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_02-cv-00169/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_02-cv-00169-15.pdf
SHA-256 89dbd229a68bb63c89876cc32d82bc68d4a497d9adb003455a6c93c32b4f4bea
Re-using this document
A work of the United States Government. Not subject to copyright in the United States under 17 U.S.C. § 105, and therefore in the public domain from the moment it was created.
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-89dbd229a68b
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 JUAN MENDEZ, RENE VARGAS, FRANK 5 ORTIZ, REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, and 5 JAIME GARCIA, 5 2002-CV-0169 5 Plaintiffs, 5 v. 5 5 HOVENSA, L.L.C., 5 5 Defendant. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Onik’a Gilliam, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER is before the Court for consideration upon Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion to Reconsider the Oral Order Allegedly Made During March 31, 2008[,] Settlement Conference (Docket No. 470); Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Entered April 02, 2008 (Docket No. 474); and, Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) [sic] to File Sworn Testimony in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion For Reconsideration of Judge Savage’s Oral Order (Docket No. 502). Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 515 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 1 of 3 Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C 2002-CV-0169 Order Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order issued by a judge or magistrate judge of this Court based upon “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 (formerly, LRCi 7.4). It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Snith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (citation omitted). Such a motion “[i]s not a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not.” Bostic v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). Having reviewed the motions for reconsideration and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has not presented any new evidence nor has Defendant persuaded the Court that its previous orders require modification or reversal. WHEREFORE, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion to Reconsider the Oral Order Allegedly Made During March 31, 2008[,] Settlement Conference (Docket No. 470) is DENIED. Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 515 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 2 of 3 Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C 2002-CV-0169 Order 2. Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order Entered April 02, 2008 (Docket No. 474) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) [sic] to File Sworn Testimony in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion For Reconsideration of Judge Savage’s Oral Order (Docket No. 502) is GRANTED. ENTER: Dated: June 3, 2008 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS Document #: 515 Filed: 06/03/08 Page 3 of 3