Bach v. Ehrler et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 32 is DENIED. 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 (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JOHN N. BACH,
Case No. 4:14-cv-469-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
PAULA EHRLER, et al.,
Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32). 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.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

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
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.
Plaintiff’s motion does not fall within one of these categories. Accordingly, the Court
will deny the motion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32) is DENIED.
DATED: March 18, 2015

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3