Pedersen et al v. State of Idaho et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 26 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

REV. JAMES EINAR PEDERSEN;
REV. HAROLD DAVID BAILEY,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 4:11-cv-00601-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
STATE OF IDAHO; CASSIA
COUNTY; FIFTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT; SUPREME COURT OF
THE STATE OF IDAHO; CITY OF
BURLEY; CITY OF BURLEY
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE; CASSIA
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.

The Court has before it the Motion to Reconsider Order Dismissing with Prejudice
(Dkt. 26). 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 necessarily carved in stone.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that the "law of the case" doctrine "merely

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

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. The
pending motion does not fall within one of these categories. Therefore, it will be denied.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Motion to Reconsider Order Dismissing with Prejudice (Dkt. 26) is
DENIED.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

DATED: July 9, 2012

B. LYNN WINMILL
Chief U.S. District Court Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3