Oat, Joan v. Sewer Enterprises, Ltd
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 5 JOAN OAT, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 3:03-cv-115 v. 5 5 SEWER ENTERPRISES, LTD f/k/a SEWER 5 DOLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., and ESTATE 5 OF LLEWELLYN A. SEWER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Joan C. Oat, Pro Se A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. Samuel H. Hall, Jr., Esq. Kevin W. Weatherbee, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion For Reconsideration of February 3, 2010[,] Order (Docket No. 450). The time for filing any response has expired. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order or decision of the 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. It is well established that “[a] motion for reconsideration ‘[i]s not a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters Case: 3:03-cv-00115-JRS-RM Document #: 456 Filed: 03/09/10 Page 1 of 2 Oat v. …
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_03-cv-00115/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-3_03-cv-00115-0.pdf
SHA-256 e2d62a66ca85124068683485d9b217dbb905a3f0436ed76f66f8575843156f2f
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-e2d62a66ca85
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN 5 JOAN OAT, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 3:03-cv-115 v. 5 5 SEWER ENTERPRISES, LTD f/k/a SEWER 5 DOLIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., and ESTATE 5 OF LLEWELLYN A. SEWER, 5 5 Defendants. 5 __________________________________________5 TO: Joan C. Oat, Pro Se A. Jeffrey Weiss, Esq. Samuel H. Hall, Jr., Esq. Kevin W. Weatherbee, Esq. ORDER THIS MATTER came before the Court upon the Motion For Reconsideration of February 3, 2010[,] Order (Docket No. 450). The time for filing any response has expired. Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of an order or decision of the 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. It is well established that “[a] motion for reconsideration ‘[i]s not a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters Case: 3:03-cv-00115-JRS-RM Document #: 456 Filed: 03/09/10 Page 1 of 2 Oat v. Sewer Enterprises 3:03-cv-115 Order already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not.’” Worldwide Flight Services v. Government of the Virgin Islands, S.Ct. Civ. No. 2008-014, 2009 WL 152316 at *3 (V.I. January 21, 2009) (quoting Bostic v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004)). Having reviewed the matter and upon due consideration thereof, the Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted. While movant notes that the Court has the authority to appoint a substitute receiver, movant fails to persuade the Court that such appointment is mandatory. Consequently, movant has provided no basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that the Motion For Reconsideration of February 3, 2010[,] Order (Docket No. 450) is DENIED. ENTER: Dated: March 9, 2010 /s/ George W. Cannon, Jr. GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 3:03-cv-00115-JRS-RM Document #: 456 Filed: 03/09/10 Page 2 of 2