Yousaf v. Curators of the University of Missouri et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 48 motion for reconsideration. Signed on November 7, 2018, by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Law clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
SEAN YOUSAF,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-cv-00321-DGK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This lawsuit arises from Plaintiff Sean Yousaf’s dismissal from the University of
Missouri at Kansas City School of Dentistry (“the SOD”). Plaintiff alleges the SOD and various
faculty members and school officials violated the SOD’s academic policies, his federal and state
due process rights, and Title VI, as well as committed various state law torts against him.
Yesterday, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to strike various affidavits submitted by
Defendants (Doc. 47). Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. 48) the
Court’s order denying the motion to strike.
Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider rehashes several arguments the Court previously rejected,
which is not permitted. Broadway v. Norris, 193 F.3d 987, 990 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding a
motion for reconsideration “is not a vehicle for simple reargument on the merits.”)
Plaintiff also argues the Court should reconsider because it erred by not considering a
reply brief he filed in support of the motion to strike. Plaintiff contends this reply brief addresses
several of the Court’s reasons for denying the motion, arguments the Court apparently
overlooked.

The Court did not overlook any arguments contained in a reply brief, however, because
no such reply brief was ever filed.1 Plaintiff should not be too discouraged though, because the
failure to file the reply brief had no effect on the outcome. The Court has considered these
arguments as summarized in Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and they would not have altered the
Court’s decision.
The motion to reconsider (Doc. 48) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 7, 2018

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

It is clear from the docket that no such reply brief was ever filed: Plaintiff’s motion to strike is docket number 42;
docket number 43 is Defendants’ reply suggestions on their motion to dismiss; docket number 44 is Defendants’
suggestions in opposition to the motion to strike; docket number 45 is a motion for a teleconference; docket number
46 is an order denying the motion for a teleconference; and docket number 47 is the Court’s order denying
Plaintiff’s motion to strike.
1

2