DOBRINSKA v. U. S., 3:11-CV-03015. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20120131810
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 30, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER P. K. HOLMES, III, District Judge. Currently before the Court is Defendant United States of America, Department of the Interior, National Parks Service Concessionaire Department's Motion to Alter and Amend Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 11). As a preliminary matter, the basis for Defendant's Motion is improper, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) pertains to motions to amend or alter final judgments, and no judgment has entered in the case at bar. Instead,
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER P. K. HOLMES, III, District Judge. Currently before the Court is Defendant United States of America, Department of the Interior, National Parks Service Concessionaire Department's Motion to Alter and Amend Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 11). As a preliminary matter, the basis for Defendant's Motion is improper, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) pertains to motions to amend or alter final judgments, and no judgment has entered in the case at bar. Instead, ..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P. K. HOLMES, III, District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendant United States of America, Department of the Interior, National Parks Service Concessionaire Department's Motion to Alter and Amend Memorandum and Order Pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 11). As a preliminary matter, the basis for Defendant's Motion is improper, as Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) pertains to motions to amend or alter final judgments, and no judgment has entered in the case at bar. Instead, it appears that Defendant would like the Court to reconsider its Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 10) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (a).
Defendant asserts that when the Court ruled on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), the Court failed to consider a dispositive Eighth Circuit opinion, Mader v. United States, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011). On the contrary, the Court did consider this opinion and cited to it in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order (Doc. 10). The Mader case is distinguishable from the facts present in the instant dispute, was published prior to the Court's issuance of its Order (Doc. 10) and is not new authority, and does not present a valid basis for the Court to reconsider its prior Order. Therefore, Defendant's Motion to Alter and Amend (Doc. 11) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
