Houston v. AFSCME Local 2250

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/12/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

I

, ,

_

, I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
1 ,,' I 2

TERRY HOUSTON,

c I!.. -' Li
'"), ~

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

Case No.: G./H-15-2507

*
SHIRLEY
et al.,

KIRKLAND,

*
Defendants.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

*

*

*

*

*

*

OPINION

Following full briefing from the parties and a motions hearing held on November 16,
2016. the Court issued its 23-page decision granting, in part, and denying, in part, Defendants'
Motion lor Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19. The background facts of this case are fully set
forth in that Memorandum Opinion. Id. The Court entered a Pretrial Scheduling Order on
December 16, 2016, and a date has been set lor trial. ECF No, 22. Now before the Court is
Plaintiffs Motion lor Reconsideration of the Court's earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting partial summary judgment, ECF Nos. 19 and 20. ECF No. 25. For the lollowing
reasons, Plaintif1's Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
"An order of partial summary judgment [as here] is interlocutory in nature:' Am. Canoe
Ass

'/1

v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F3d 505, 514-15 (4th Cir. 2003). This Court "retains the

power to reconsider and modify its interlocutory judgments, including partial summary
judgments. at any time prior to linal judgment when such is warranted." Id. (citing Fayelleville
Inves/ors v. Commercial Builders. Inc.. 936 F.2d 1462, 1469 (4th Cir. 1991). This power "is

committed to the discretion of the district court:'Id.

(citing Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v.

Mercury Consl. Corp .. 460 U.S. I. 12 (1983)). Earlier decisions of the Court become law of the
case and must be followed unless "(1) a subsequent trial produces substantially different
evidence, (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the
issue, or (3) the prior decision was clearly erroneous and would work manifest injustice:' Am.
Canoe Ass 'n. 326 F.3d at 515 (citing Sejman v. Warner-Lamberl

Co.. Inc.. 845 F.2d 66, 69 (4th

Cir. 1988)). "Clear error or manifest injustice occurs where a court 'has patently misunderstood a
party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties.
or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension ... ". Wagner v. Warden, No. ELH14-791,2016 WL 1169937, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 24,2016) (quoting King v. McFadden, 2015 WL
4937292, at *2 (D.S.C. August 18,2015».
"[M]ere disagreement" with the court's ruling docs not support a motion to reconsider.
1I111chinson1'. Slalon. 994 F.2d 1076, I082 (4th Cir. 1993); see also Lynn

1'.

Monarch Recovery

Mgml., Inc.• 953 F. Supp. 2d 612, 620 (D. Md. 2013). The Fourth Circuit has further made clear
that parties "should not be pennitted to use a motion to reconsider as a vehicle to introduce
additional evidence which could have been adduced during the pendency of the prior motion ...
Dispositive motions serve judicial economy by encouraging parties to winnow out extraneous
issues'" Fayellevi//e Inv 'rs

I'.

Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1470 (4th Cir. 1991).

"This system is compromised if courts allow litigants to control the time at which evidence will
be produced." Id. Thus, "reconsideration ofajudgment
which should be used sparingly." Pac. Ins. Co.

1'.

Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

2

after its entry is an extraordinary remedy

Am. Nal. Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th

In Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration, Ms. Houston does not allege any intervening
changes in controlling authority. Rather, Ms. Houston argues that 1) "the Court committed
manifest errors oflaw and fact in granting summary judgment on Houston's disparate treatment
age discrimination claim, 2) "the Court committed manifest errors oflaw and fact in detennining
that Houston did not exhaust her administrative remedies regarding her ADA actual disability
and failure-to-accommodate

claims," 3) .'the Union was on notice of Houston's injury-related

disability," 4) "the Union took adverse actions against Houston based on her injury-related
disability," 5) "Houston has made out a claim for retaliation," and 6) "Houston exhausted her
administrative remedies regarding her hostile work environment claim." ECF No. 25. The Court
has reviewed each of these arguments and finds that they either involve attempts to introduce
evidence or argument that could have been incorporated into Plaintitrs

Opposition to

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, or mere disagreement with the Court's ruling.
Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is denied. A separate Order shall issue.

&;i-

Date: January/ z.... 2017

George J. Ha'zel
United States Distriet Judge

3