Filed: Sep. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 30, 2016
Summary: JUDGMENT 1 CURTIS V. G MEZ , District Judge . Before the Court is the motion of Richard Vento and Lana Vento to reconsider the Court's entry of judgment against certain defendants on September 30, 2015. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 permits motions for reconsideration only where there is: 1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. LRCi 7.3. Such motion "shall be filed within fourteen
Summary: JUDGMENT 1 CURTIS V. G MEZ , District Judge . Before the Court is the motion of Richard Vento and Lana Vento to reconsider the Court's entry of judgment against certain defendants on September 30, 2015. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 permits motions for reconsideration only where there is: 1. intervening change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence; 3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. LRCi 7.3. Such motion "shall be filed within fourteen ..
More
JUDGMENT1
CURTIS V. GÓMEZ, District Judge.
Before the Court is the motion of Richard Vento and Lana Vento to reconsider the Court's entry of judgment against certain defendants on September 30, 2015.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3 permits motions for reconsideration only where there is:
1. intervening change in controlling law;
2. availability of new evidence;
3. the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
LRCi 7.3. Such motion "shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after entry of the order or decision unless the time is extended by the Court." LRCi 7.3.
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir.1985). "Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used `as a vehicle for registering disagreement with the court's initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not.'" Cabrita Point Dev., Inc. v. Evans, 52 V.I. 968, 975 (D.V.I. 2009) (quoting Bostic v. AT & T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp.2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004)).
In the context of a motion to reconsider, "manifest injustice `generally means that the Court overlooked some dispositive factual or legal matter that was presented to it.'" Id. (quoting In re Rose, No. 06-1818(JLP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64622, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2007)). Manifest injustice has also been defined as "`an error in the trial court that is direct, obvious, and observable.'" Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.2d 342, 348 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 974 (7th ed. 1999)). "[M]ost cases . . . use the term `manifest injustice' to describe the result of plain error." Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1425 (5th Cir. 1996).
The premises considered, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED insofar as it seeks an entry of judgment against Citadel Insurance Co., Ltd.; First Fidelity Trust, Ltd.; and Fidelity Insurance Co.; it is further
ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED insofar as it seeks an entry of judgment against Alliance Holding Co., Ltd.; Alliance Royalties, Inc.; Westminster Hope & Turnberry, LLC; Offshore Trust Services, LLC; Fortress Family Office Group; New Hope Holdings, Ltd.; and AP Holdings, Ltd.; it is further
ORDERED that the Motion for leave to File Excess Pages is MOOT; it is further
ORDERED that the Motions to Withdraw as Attorney, ECF No. 452 and 453, are GRANTED insofar as the motions seek to withdraw representation of Steven Donaldson and Duane Crithfield individually; and it is further
ORDERED that the Motions to Withdraw as Attorney, ECF No. 452 and 453, are hereby DENIED in regards to all other defendants.
