Jones v. Calpine Corporation, et al, No. 3:2009cv00036 - Document 49 (S.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 42 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order Denying Pltf's Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Dft's Motion for Summary Judgment.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, )

Download PDF
Jones v. Calpine Corporation, et al Doc. 49 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION DYNELL JONES VS. CALPINE CORPORATION, ET AL. § § § § § CIVIL ACTION NO. G-09-036 OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the “Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” of Plaintiff Dynell Jones; the Motion will be denied. On March 29, 2010, following this Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion for an extension, which was filed in order to permit Jones to seek a revocation of Calpine’s bankruptcy discharge which stood as a bar to his claims for severance benefits and bonuses, Jones filed the instant Motion. The Motion for an extension was denied due to Jones’ lack of diligence in requesting the revocation. In his Motion for Reconsideration Jones simply offers additional facts in support of the extension, however, the fact remains that as of April 23, 2010, Jones had still not filed any request with the Bankruptcy Court. A Motion for Reconsideration should not be used as a means to argue new facts or issues that inexcusably were not presented to the Court in the matter previously decided. Bhatnagar v. Surrendra Overseas Ltd., 52 F.3d 1220, 1231 (3rd Cir. 1995) It is, therefore, ORDERED that the “Motion to Reconsider Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Instrument no. 42) of Plaintiff Dynell Jones is DENIED. DONE at Galveston, Texas, this 28th day of April, 2010. Dockets.Justia.com

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.