Campos Cue v. Learjet Inc et al

Filing 55

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 4/13/2011: Mailed notice(mpj, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Elaine E. Bucklo

CASE NUMBER

10 C 7188

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/13/2011

Campos Cue vs. Learjet, Inc., et al.

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

Defendants’ motion to reconsider (48) is denied.

O[ For further details see text below.]

Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT
On March 17, 2011, I granted plaintiffs’ motions to file amended
complaints and remanded these cases to state court. Currently before me are
defendants’ joint motions to reconsider that decision. Those motions are
denied.
“‘Motions for reconsideration [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e)] serve a limited function; to correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.’” Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal
& Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int’l
Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656 (N.D. Ill. 1982)). “Reconsideration is
not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments.”
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 841, 844 (N.D. Ill. 1998). Nor
can parties use such motions to raise arguments or present evidence that
could have been raised in the original briefing. Rothwell, 827 F.2d at 251.
With one exception discussed below, defendants merely rehash arguments
I have already considered and rejected in my original ruling. As this is
not a proper basis for a motion to reconsider, I decline to revisit my
earlier conclusions. The cases cited by defendants regarding imputation of
knowledge are distinguishable from the instant cases in that none deal with
the factual scenario present here (imputing knowledge obtained by an
attorney in one case to a different set of plaintiffs in another case).
With respect to the issue of “mistake” and plaintiffs’ motives in seeking
amendment, I reject defendants’ attempt to characterize my opinion as
shifting the burden from plaintiffs to defendants. The isolated phrases
10C7188 Campos Cue vs. Learjet, Inc., et al.

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
defendants identified were merely comments on the strength or weakness of
defendants’ arguments and in no way improperly shifted the burden to
defendants.
With respect to defendants’ suggestion that they informed
plaintiffs’ attorney in a sworn affidavit, an amended answer and in person
that GE Aviation Systems, LLC, was not the proper party (in the Bjorkstam
case), these assertions were not made in their original briefing. Because
this information was clearly known to defendants and could have been raised
in the original briefing, it is too late for defendants to raise it now. See
Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (“A
party may not use a motion for reconsideration to introduce new evidence
that could have been presented earlier.”).
There is one argument raised by defendants based on new information
which has come to light since my ruling. Defendants argue that one of the
other airplane crash cases in federal court in Texas will remain there, and
thus could not be consolidated with these cases in Texas state court
(assuming the Illinois state court dismisses these cases, as it did in
Bjorkstam v. Learjet, due to forum non conveniens).
This new piece of
information does not alter my § 1447(e) analysis, which I decided using the
framework identified by the Seventh Circuit in Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss
Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 759 (7th Cir. 2009). As plaintiffs point out,
even with one of the other related cases in federal court in Texas, it is
likely that these two cases would join the two Bjorkstam cases in Texas
state court.
Having reviewed all the arguments raised by defendants in this motion,
I reaffirm my March 17, 2011 order. The motion to reconsider is denied.

10C7188 Campos Cue vs. Learjet, Inc., et al.

Page 2 of 2