Filed: Jan. 20, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge. This case is before the Court on the Motion of John Demjanjuk to Reconsider Memorandum of Opinion and Order of December 20, 2011 ("Reconsideration Motion") ( Doc #: 238 ). Demjanjuk asks the Court to reconsider its decision, issued on December 20, 2011 denying his motion for extraordinary relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 without a hearing ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). (Doc #: 237.) Motions for reconsideration are "`extraordinary in n
Summary: MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge. This case is before the Court on the Motion of John Demjanjuk to Reconsider Memorandum of Opinion and Order of December 20, 2011 ("Reconsideration Motion") ( Doc #: 238 ). Demjanjuk asks the Court to reconsider its decision, issued on December 20, 2011 denying his motion for extraordinary relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 without a hearing ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). (Doc #: 237.) Motions for reconsideration are "`extraordinary in na..
More
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER
DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Motion of John Demjanjuk to Reconsider Memorandum of Opinion and Order of December 20, 2011 ("Reconsideration Motion") (Doc #: 238). Demjanjuk asks the Court to reconsider its decision, issued on December 20, 2011 denying his motion for extraordinary relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 without a hearing ("Rule 60(b) Motion"). (Doc #: 237.)
Motions for reconsideration are "`extraordinary in nature and, because they run contrary to notions of finality and repose, should be discouraged.'" Plaskon Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Allied-Signal, Inc., 904 F.Supp. 644, 669 (N.D. Ohio 1995) (quoting In Re August, 1993 Regular Grand Jury, 854 F.Supp. 1403, 1406 (S.D. Ind. 1994)). "As such, motions for reconsideration are granted `very sparingly.'" Id. (quoting Bakari v. Beyer, 870 F.Supp. 85, 88 (D. N.J. 1994)). While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not provide for a motion for reconsideration, the Sixth Circuit has held such motions may be treated as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Rodriguez v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:08 CV 1892, 2009 WL 156956, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Jun. 3, 2009) (citation omitted). Thus, a court may grant a motion to reconsider only if there is a clear error of law, newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law, or to prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); GenCorp, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). It is not the function of a motion to reconsider to renew arguments already considered and rejected by the court. McConocho v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mut. of Ohio, 930 F.Supp.1182, 1184 (N.D. Ohio 1996).
The Court has reviewed the Reconsideration Motion, the opposition brief (Doc #: 239) and the reply (Doc #: 240), and concludes that there is nothing in Demjanjuk's Motion which warrants the Court changing its December 20, 2011 decision denying his Rule 60(b) Motion without a hearing. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Reconsideration Motion (Doc #: 238).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
