Anthony, Voncelle v. Abbott, Richard
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN VONVELLE ANTHONY and KAMARI LEWIS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1999-78 v. RICHARD ABBOTT and MAZDA CORPORATION, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is defendant Mazda’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 19, 2011 (ECF 341) Order extending the time for plaintiff to file its submission in relation to the Court’s Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2007. Defendant claims it was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the motion, nor were the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure met with respect to meriting an extension of time. Defendant argues that the Order allowing an extension was “clear error” and an abuse of discretion. Local Rule Civil Procedure 7.3 provides that a motion for reconsideration must be based on “1. [an] intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Here, defendant has failed to meet its burden on the motion for reconsideration. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-3_99-cv-00078/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_99-cv-00078-3.pdf
SHA-256 a453a1da176196296d4e0c1d7ab600aefdabba2258f709fa81d94f09801a87ff
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-a453a1da1761
Document text
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN VONVELLE ANTHONY and KAMARI LEWIS, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 1999-78 v. RICHARD ABBOTT and MAZDA CORPORATION, Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is defendant Mazda’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 19, 2011 (ECF 341) Order extending the time for plaintiff to file its submission in relation to the Court’s Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2007. Defendant claims it was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the motion, nor were the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure met with respect to meriting an extension of time. Defendant argues that the Order allowing an extension was “clear error” and an abuse of discretion. Local Rule Civil Procedure 7.3 provides that a motion for reconsideration must be based on “1. [an] intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Here, defendant has failed to meet its burden on the motion for reconsideration. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1(e)(3) provides that the Court may rule on a motion without a response from the non-movant.1 It was thus not error, let alone “clear error,” for the Court to rule on the motion without awaiting a response from defendant. 1 As defendant cited this Court to Local Rule 7.1 in claiming and entitlement to respond to the motion, presumably it was aware of this subsection also. Case: 3:99-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 353 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 1 of 2 Anthony, et al. v. Abbott, et al. Civil No. 1999-78 In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) leaves it to the Court’s discretion whether to grant an extension with respect to the doing of any act. Under the circumstances presented, the Court exercised that discretion within allowable bounds. That defendant does not agree with the result does not warrant reconsideration. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant’s motion is DENIED. S\________________________________ RUTH MILLER United States Magistrate Judge Case: 3:99-cv-00078-CVG-RM Document #: 353 Filed: 07/09/12 Page 2 of 2