Attorneys: More Attorneys
Filed: Mar. 04, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 04, 2020
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . On March 3, 2020, Langdon & Emison, LLC (L&E) moved this Court to reconsider its order of February 19, 2020, denying L&E's request for Rule 54(b) certification of its November 8, 2019 order. See ECF No. 7787. L&E argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court mistakenly stated that L&E had filed another declaratory judgment motion, when, in fact, that motion had been filed by the Potts Law Firm. See id. at 2. The Court did indeed err
Summary: ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN , District Judge . On March 3, 2020, Langdon & Emison, LLC (L&E) moved this Court to reconsider its order of February 19, 2020, denying L&E's request for Rule 54(b) certification of its November 8, 2019 order. See ECF No. 7787. L&E argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court mistakenly stated that L&E had filed another declaratory judgment motion, when, in fact, that motion had been filed by the Potts Law Firm. See id. at 2. The Court did indeed err ..
More
ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge.
On March 3, 2020, Langdon & Emison, LLC (L&E) moved this Court to reconsider its order of February 19, 2020, denying L&E's request for Rule 54(b) certification of its November 8, 2019 order. See ECF No. 7787. L&E argues that reconsideration is warranted because the Court mistakenly stated that L&E had filed another declaratory judgment motion, when, in fact, that motion had been filed by the Potts Law Firm. See id. at 2. The Court did indeed err in attributing the pending motion to L&E. The Court's error, however, alters neither its analysis nor its ultimate conclusion. The fact remains that, in deciding the pending motion, "the Court is likely to confront issues that were fully briefed in connection with [L&E's motion for declaratory judgment] but not resolved" in the order that resolved that motion. See ECF No. 7766 at 2. Resolution of those issues may "provide an independent and adequate basis on which to impose a common benefit assessment on the settlements at issue" in L&E's motion. Id. Judicial efficiency is thus best served by waiting until the pending motion is resolved. That L&E did not file the pending motion is immaterial.
Accordingly, L&E's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 7787.
SO ORDERED.
