MATHEWS v. BRONGER MASONRY, INC.

Filing 125

ORDER denying 122 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 4/18/2011. (CBU)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Penny Mathews,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bronger Masonry, Inc.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-00478-SEB-DML

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter comes once more before the Court, this time on Plaintiff Penny
Mathews’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s February 18, 2011 Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). To prevail
on such a motion, “the movant must present either newly discovered evidence or establish
manifest error of law or fact.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th
Cir. 2000). Manifest error is the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to
recognize controlling precedent.” Id. (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F. Supp. 1063,
1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997)).
Ms. Mathews seeks additional findings of fact and amended findings of fact and
conclusions of law. However, she has presented no new evidence or cited to any legal
precedent to support her request, let alone established that this Court erred in its prior
ruling(s). Rather, Ms. Mathews’s request for additional findings of fact relates not at all
to our previous analysis and is replete with arguments that have either been previously

rejected or reflect a misunderstanding of our holding. Therefore, Ms. Mathews’s Motion
for Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/18/2011
Date:____________________________

_______________________________
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

2

Copies to:

Zachary Judson Eichel
EINTERZ & EINTERZ
[e-mail]
Michael L. Einterz Jr.
EINTERZ & EINTERZ
[e-mail]
Michael L. Einterz Sr.
EINTERZ & EINTERZ
[e-mail]
Ronald E. Weldy
WELDY & ASSOCIATES
[e-mail]

3