Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Day v. Finishing Brands Holdings, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Eastern Division

July 17, 2015

JERRY WAYNE DAY, Plaintiff,
v.
FINISHING BRANDS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

J. DANIEL BREEN, Chief District Judge.

Before the Court are the motions of the Plaintiff, Jerry Wayne Day, and the Defendant, Finishing Brand Holdings, Inc. ("FB"), requesting reconsideration of portions of the Court's May 14, 2015 order granting in part and denying in part FB's motion for summary judgment. (Docket Entries ("D.E.") 114 and 115.) For the reasons discussed below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Legal Standard

While neither party identifies the procedural basis for their motions, the Court will construe them as being brought pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 7.3 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ("Local Rules"). Rule 54 provides that

any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). District courts also have an inherent power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order before entry of a final judgment. See Leelanau Wine Cellars Ltd. v. Black & Red, Inc., 118 F.Appx. 942, 945 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Mallory v. Eyrich, 922 F.2d 1273, 1282 (6th Cir. 1991)). However, motions "may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'" Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)).

"[R]econsideration of an interlocutory order is only appropriate when one of the following has occurred: (1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or correct manifest injustice." Bailey v. Real Time Staffing Servs., Inc., 927 F.Supp.2d 490, 501 (W.D. Tenn. 2012) (citing Carbon Processing & Reclamation, LLC v. Valero Mktg. & Supply Co., No. 09-2127, 2010 WL 3925261, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Sept. 29, 2010)). "When the parties simply view[ ] the law in a light contrary to that of [the court], the proper recourse' is not to file a motion to reconsider but rather to file an appeal." Id. at 501-02 (citing Dana Corp. v. United States, 764 F.Supp. 482, 489 (N.D. Ohio 1991)).

Motions for revision or reconsideration of interlocutory orders are also governed by Local Rule 7.3, which states:

(a) Application to Non-Final Orders. Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), for the revision of any interlocutory order made by that Court on any ground set forth in subsection (b) of this rule. Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders are not otherwise permitted.
(b) Form and Content of Motion to Revise. A motion for revision must specifically show:
(1) a material difference in fact or law from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which revision is sought, and that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for revision did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) the occurrence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion for revision may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order that the party seeks to have revised. Any party or counsel who violates this restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, including, but not limited to, striking the filing.

Local Rule 7.3. As neither motion presents new evidence, new material facts, or a change in law, they must be based on the contention that there was a manifest failure by the Court in considering material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented to it before ruling on Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

II. Analysis

A. Plaintiff's Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.