Bryant v. Tamarack Municipal Association, Inc., No. 1:2014cv00339 - Document 59 (D. Idaho 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 57 Motion to Alter or Amend Court's Order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

Download PDF
Bryant v. Tamarack Municipal Association, Inc. Doc. 59 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO JEANNE B. BRYANT, solely in her capacity as court-appointed independent fiduciary for RETIREMENT SECURITY PLAN AND TRUST, Case No. 1:14-cv-00339-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. TAMARACK MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho corporation, Defendant. The Court has before it Plaintiff’s F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Court’s Order (Dkt. 57). A motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires an analysis of two important principles: (1) Error must be corrected; and (2) Judicial efficiency demands forward progress. The former principle has led courts to hold that a denial of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time before final judgment. Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th Cir. 1979). While even an interlocutory decision becomes the “law of the case,” it is not MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1 Dockets.Justia.com necessarily carved in stone. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the “law of the case” doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided, not a limit to their power.” Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444 (1912). “The only sensible thing for a trial court to do is to set itself right as soon as possible when convinced that the law of the case is erroneous. There is no need to await reversal.” In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, 521 F.Supp. 568, 572 (N.D.Cal. 1981)(Schwartzer, J.). The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc., 123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988). Reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is appropriate “if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” S.E.C. v. Platforms Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these three categories, it must be denied. Here, Plaintiff has essentially asked the Court to re-think its earlier ruling. The Court thoroughly considered the briefing and oral argument, and made its earlier decision. Rule 59 is not intended to provide litigants with a “second bite at the apple,” and the Court will not entertain such a request. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2 Cir. 2001). Plaintiff has not met any of the three requirements for reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion. ORDER IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Court’s Order (Dkt. 57) is DENIED. DATED: November 5, 2015 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.