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.

Hicks v. Benton County Board of Education

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

January 31, 2017

CASSANDRA HICKS, Plaintiff,
v.
BENTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

          J. DANIEL BREEN, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

         The Plaintiff, Cassandra Hicks, filed her initial complaint against the Defendant, the Benton County, Tennessee, Board of Education (“BCBOE”), on December 22, 2014 (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) 1), and an amended pleading on June 17, 2015 (D.E. 39). She alleged retaliation in violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12203; the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the Tennessee Public Protection Act, Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-1-304 (“TPPA”).

         In an order entered December 1, 2016, this Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment (the “Order”). (D.E. 95.) Specifically, the Court dismissed Hicks' First Amendment retaliation and TPPA claims. Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the Order. (D.E. 97.)

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that,

[w]hen an action presents more than one claim for relief -- whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim -- or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, 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). The Local Rules of this district permit a party to move, pursuant to Rule 54(b), for the revision of an interlocutory order on a specific showing by the movant of

(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 the 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.

LR 7.3(a)-(b). Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders brought on other grounds are not permitted. LR 7.3(a). The Local Rule further provides that [n]o

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 sanction, including, but not limited to, striking the filing.

LR 7.3(c).

         III. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff challenges the following determinations of the Court, citing the first and third bases 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.