Hurst v. IHC Health Services, Inc. et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 60 Rossman Law Group, PLLCs Motion for Reconsideration. 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 (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

CINDY HURST,

Case No. 4:10-cv-00387-BLW
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
IHC HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a Utah
General Non-Profit Corporation, d/b/a
CASSIA REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER; INTERMOUNTAIN
HEALTH CARE, INC., a Utah General
Non-Profit Corporation,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Rossman Law Group, PLLC’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Dkt. 60).
ANALYSIS
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
ORDER - 1

an interlocutory decision becomes the “law of the case,” it is not 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, Rossman has not met its burden. Rossman may have fleshed out some
additional facts not recited in the Court’s earlier decision, but they do not the change the
Court’s opinion of the matter, and the Court will not reconsider its earlier decision.
ORDER - 2

Moreover, Rossman’s suggestion that Hurst breached her contract with them because she
obtained substitute counsel before the Court formally granted Rossman’s motion to
withdraw is unpersuasive. It was prudent for Hurst to immediately obtain substitute
counsel when Rossman informed her that it could no longer represent her and filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Rossman Law Group, PLLC’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 60) is DENIED.

DATED: July 31, 2012

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 3