Macamaux v. Millard et al

Filing 184

RULING denying 183 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janet C. Hall on 10/6/2011. (Oliver, T.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
ROBERT MACAMAUX,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAY KIMBALL HOSPITAL,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL CASE NO.
3:09-cv-164 (JCH)

OCTOBER 6, 2011

RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 183)
Pursuant to D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(c), the defendant, Day Kimball Hospital, has
moved the court to reconsider its Ruling granting in part and denying in part Day
Kimball’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Ruling Re: Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. No.
178). More specifically, Day Kimball argues that the court erred in denying summary
judgment on the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide an appropriate medical screening
examination under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA),
42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(a).
There are three grounds that justify granting a motion for reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of newly discovered evidence;
and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Virgin Atl.
Airways, Ltd. v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 956 F.2d 1245, 1255 (2d Cir.1992). That the court
overlooked controlling law or material facts may also entitle a party to succeed on a
motion to reconsider. Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n. 2 (2d Cir. 2000) (per
curiam) (“To be entitled to reargument, a party must demonstrate that the Court
overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the
underlying motion.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). A court should not grant a
motion for reconsideration if “the moving party seeks solely to re-litigate an issue

already decided.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir.1995). Thus,
the standard governing motions for reconsideration is strict and “reconsideration will
generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data
that the court overlooked-matters ... that might reasonably be expected to alter the
conclusion reached by the court.” Id.
Day Kimball fails to justify reconsideration of the court’s Ruling. It does not cite
any newly discovered evidence or intervening change in the law governing the plaintiff’s
EMTALA claim; nor does it point out evidence or case law that the court overlooked in
deciding the earlier motion. Instead, Day Kimball argues simply that the court erred in
finding a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff received an
appropriate medical screening examination under EMTALA. See Mot. for Recons. at 2.
This is an attempt to re-litigate a matter already decided. See Ruling Re: Mot. For
Summ. J. at 5-12 (featuring a lengthy discussion of this issue). Accordingly, the Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 183) is denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 6th day of October, 2011.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

2