LASKA v. KELLEY MANUFACTURING CO

Filing 41

ORDER denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE HUGH LAWSON on 11/22/2019. (aks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION

DEBRA LASKA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 7:17-CV-214 (HL)

KELLEY MANUFACTURING CO. d/b/a
KMC MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Debra Laska’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 39) of the Court’s September 26, 2019, Order (Doc. 37) granting Defendant
Kelley Manufacturing Co. d/b/a KMC Manufacturing Company’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 28). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff’s motion.
Local Rule 7.6 warns litigants that “Motions for Reconsideration shall not
be filed as a matter of routine practice.” M.D. Ga. L.R. 7.6. A motion for
reconsideration is appropriate when the moving party can show: “(1) there has
been an intervening change in the law, (2) new evidence has been discovered
that was not previously available to the parties at the time the original order was
entered, or (3) reconsideration is necessary to correct a clear error of law or
prevent manifest injustice.” Bryant v. Carter, No. 5:09-CV-281 (HL), 2010 WL

2640600, at *1 (M.D. Ga. June 29, 2010) (quoting Pennamon v. United Bank, No.
5:09-CV-169 (CAR), 2009 WL 2355816, at *1 (M.D. Ga. July 28, 2009)). “[A]
motion for reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to simply reargue an
issue the Court has once determined. Court opinions are not intended as mere
first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant’s pleasure.”
Wallace v. Ga. Dep’t of Trans., No. 7:04-CV-78 (HL), 2006 WL 1582409, at *2
(M.D. Ga. June 6, 2006) (quoting Am. Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Hood,
278 F. Supp 2d. 1337, 1340 (M.D. Fla. 2003)).
Plaintiff filed this action against her former employer based on her
allegation that Defendant retaliated against her in violation of Title VII after her
spouse engaged in statutorily protected conduct. In the companion case of
James Laska v. Kelley Manufacturing Co. d/b/a KMC Manufacturing Company,
7:17-CV-212 (HL), the Court concluded that Mr. Laska failed to demonstrate that
he opposed any unlawful employment practice by Defendant and, consequently,
granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 37, p. 16). Mr. Laska
moved for reconsideration of that decision, which the Court denied. (Doc. 41).
Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant rise and fall with the success of her
husband’s claims, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration must likewise be
DENIED.

2

SO ORDERED, this the 22nd day of November, 2019.

s/ Hugh Lawson________________
HUGH LAWSON, SENIOR JUDGE

aks

3