Gleis v. Buehler et al
ORDER denying 126 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 5/10/12. (Nichols, J.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOHN BUEHLER ET AL.,
CASE NO. 3:04CV2217(DFM)
RULING ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Pending before the court is the plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration, doc. #126, of the court's order denying the
plaintiff's motion to reopen the case.
(See doc. #123.)
The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration "is
strict, and reconsideration generally will be denied unless the
moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the
court overlooked — matters, in other words, that might
reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the
Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.
1995) (citations omitted).
"The major grounds justifying
reconsideration are 'an intervening change of controlling law,
the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.'"
Virgin Atl. Airways,
Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir. 1992)
(quoting 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H.
Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4478, at 790 (1981)).
As grounds for reconsideration, the plaintiff reiterates
arguments she made in her motion to reopen.
Because a "motion
to reconsider should not be granted where the moving party seeks
solely to relitigate an issue already decided," Shrader, 70 F.3d
at 257, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 10th day of May,
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?