Camuel v. The Kroger Company, No. 5:2017cv00495 - Document 14 (E.D. Ky. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider 12 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 1/17/2019. (STC)cc: COR,PLT

Download PDF

Camuel v. The Kroger Company Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON BRIAN CAMUEL, ) ) ) Civil Case No. 5:17-cv-495-JMH ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ) ) ) Plaintiff, V. THE KROGER COMPANY, Defendant. *** *** *** *** The Court evaluates a motion to reconsider a final order or judgment as a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. See Keith v. Bobby, 618 F.3d 594, 598 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing Intera Corp. v. Henderson, 428 F.3d 605, 611 (6th Cir. 2005)); Lonardo v. Travelers Indem. Co., 706 F. Supp.2d 766, 808 (N.D. Ohio 2010). A court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if there is: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an intervening change in the law; or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice. See Intera Corp., 428 F.3d at 620 (citing GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999)); see also Lonardo, 706 F. Supp.2d at 808-09. Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 12; Response at DE 13] the Court’s September 28, 2018 Memorandum Order and Opinion Judgment [DE 10 and 11] does nothing more than reargue his previous response to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. He does not identify a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence, an Dockets.Justia.com intervening change in the law, or a need to prevent manifest injustice that would merit reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [DE 12] is DENIED. This the 17th day of January, 2019. 2

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.