Blacks in Technology International v. Blacks in Technology LLC et al, No. 3:2020cv03008 - Document 228 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order Denies 220 Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Peter Beasley. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 8/31/2022) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Blacks in Technology International v. Blacks in Technology LLC et al Doc. 228 Case 3:20-cv-03008-X Document 228 Filed 08/31/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 3370 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION BLACKS IN TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff, v. BLACKS IN TECHNOLOGY LLC, GREGORY GREENLEE, and DENNIS SCHULTZ, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-03008-X MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Peter Beasley’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion to strike counter-defendant Blacks in Technology LLC’s (“BIT LLC”) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing Beasley’s civil RICO claims, and finding as moot his motions for sanctions. [Doc. No. 220]. Beasley also claims that the Court was “obliged to maintain Beasley’s counter-claim for recovery of his litigation costs,” and that he had “pending claims for attorney’s fees in his live petition” and his motions for sanctions. Beasley does not explain via which Rule of Civil Procedure or upon what legal basis he is seeking this relief from the Court’s prior orders. Beasley’s motion contains a number of arguments, some of which he raised previously, others of which he raises for the first time in his motion for reconsideration. Perhaps most significantly, Beasley marshals in a whole host of arguments and authorities purportedly demonstrating that the motion for judgment Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:20-cv-03008-X Document 228 Filed 08/31/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 3371 on the pleadings should have been struck as untimely. 1 But in his original motion to strike the motion for judgment on the pleadings as untimely, Beasley’s only argument was based entirely on the Court’s then-current scheduling order: “Rule 12(c) allows that a party may move for judgment on the pleadings ‘after the pleadings are closed’. . . . The trial is set for June 6, 2022, and the current Amended Scheduling Order hardly defines the pleadings as now being closed.” 2 As the Court explained, “this simply [was] not true. BIT LLC filed its motion on November 18, 2021, and the deadline for the parties to seek leave to amend their pleadings was November 15, 2021.” 3 Beasley fails to explain why he did not raise these and other arguments in his original motions and briefs nor why the Court should now consider these new arguments. “Absent a showing of good cause for the failure to make an argument, consideration of a party’s newly raised ground for relief on motion for reconsideration merely saps judicial resources and invites protracted relitigation.” 4 As for Beasley’s concern regarding attorney’s fees, Beasley has proceeded pro se throughout this litigation. “Attorney’s fees are not available to a non-attorney pro 1 See Doc. No. 220 at 1–3. 2 Doc. No. 148 at 2. 3 Doc. No. 218 at 10. 4 Highland Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Highland Cap. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., No. 3:21-CV-1378-N, 2021 WL 7540296 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2021) (Godbey, J.). While Beasley does not indicate under which Rule(s) of Civil Procedure he seeks relief in his motion for reconsideration, this concern for efficiency and finality animates courts exercise of their discretion to reconsider under the various rules. Case 3:20-cv-03008-X Document 228 Filed 08/31/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 3372 se litigant.” 5 This is because, “quite simply, [Beasley] did not actually ‘pay’ or ‘incur’ attorney[’s] fees.” 6 For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons stated in its previous memorandum opinion and order, 7 the Court DENIES Beasley’s motion for reconsideration. IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st day of August, 2022. BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 Danial v. Daniels, 162 F. App’x 288, 291 (5th Cir. 2006). 6 Vaksman v. C.I.R., 54 F. App’x 592, *3 (5th Cir. 2002). 7 Doc. No. 218.
]]>
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.
