CNH Capital America LLC v. Hunt Tractor, Inc. et al

Filing 168

OPINION AND ORDER signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 2/23/2016, DENYING 160 Defendant Pagano's Motion to Reconsider. cc: Counsel(RLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE

CNH CAPITAL AMERICA LLC,

PLAINTIFF

v.

NO. 3:10-CV-00350-CRS

HUNT TRACTOR, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS
Opinion and Order

Defendant Dominic Pagano moves the Court to reconsider its prior ruling denying his
renewed motion for summary judgment.
“Motions for reconsideration are extraordinary in nature and so should only be granted
sparingly.” Gesler v. Ford Motor Co., 185 F.Supp.2d 724, 729 (W.D. Ky. 2001). The Court
may consider a previous ruling when the controlling law has changed, new evidence has become
available, or to correct clear legal error or prevent manifest injustice. Id. A party’s mere
disagreement with a prior ruling is no basis for reconsideration. Id.
Pagano does not argue that a change in law necessitates reconsideration. While Pagano
presents bank statements from 2008 – 2009, Pagano presents no new evidence that has become
available. Although Pagano argues that the Court committed clear error in finding a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Pagano was the legal cause of CNH’s loss, Pagano cites no
case law to support a finding of clear legal error in the Court’s prior analysis.
The Court DENIES Pagano’s motion to reconsider (DN 160).
February 23, 2016

C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc