Bryant v. Tamarack Municipal Association, Inc.

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 57 Motion to Alter or Amend Court's Order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JEANNE B. BRYANT, solely in her
capacity as court-appointed independent
fiduciary for RETIREMENT SECURITY
PLAN AND TRUST,

Case No. 1:14-cv-00339-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
TAMARACK MUNICIPAL
ASSOCIATION, INC., an Idaho
corporation,

Defendant.

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend
Court’s Order (Dkt. 57). A motion to reconsider an interlocutory ruling requires an
analysis of two important principles: (1) Error must be corrected; and (2) Judicial
efficiency demands forward progress. The former principle has led courts to hold that a
denial of a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment may be reconsidered at any time
before final judgment. Preaseau v. Prudential Insurance Co., 591 F.2d 74, 79-80 (9th
Cir. 1979). While even an interlocutory decision becomes the “law of the case,” it is not

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

necessarily carved in stone. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the “law of
the case” doctrine “merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen
what has been decided, not a limit to their power.” Messinger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436,
444 (1912). “The only sensible thing for a trial court to do is to set itself right as soon as
possible when convinced that the law of the case is erroneous. There is no need to await
reversal.” In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, 521 F.Supp. 568, 572 (N.D.Cal.
1981)(Schwartzer, J.).
The need to be right, however, must co-exist with the need for forward progress. A
court’s opinions “are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and
reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure.” Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Indus., Inc.,
123 F.R.D. 282, 288 (N.D.Ill.1988).
Reconsideration of a court’s prior ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e) is appropriate “if (1) the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
(2) the district court committed clear error or made an initial decision that was manifestly
unjust, or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” S.E.C. v. Platforms
Wireless Int’l Corp., 617 F.3d 1072, 1100 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). If the
motion to reconsider does not fall within one of these three categories, it must be denied.
Here, Plaintiff has essentially asked the Court to re-think its earlier ruling. The
Court thoroughly considered the briefing and oral argument, and made its earlier
decision. Rule 59 is not intended to provide litigants with a “second bite at the apple,”
and the Court will not entertain such a request. Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231, 1236 (9th

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

Cir. 2001). Plaintiff has not met any of the three requirements for reconsideration.
Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s F.R.C.P. 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Court’s Order (Dkt. 57) is
DENIED.

DATED: November 5, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3