Moschos v. Creighton University

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 48 ) filed by Plaintiff, Ileana Moschos is denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ILEANA MOSCHOS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 8:11CV403

vs.
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 48) filed
by Plaintiff, Ileana Moschos (“Moschos”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion
will be denied.
BACKGROUND
The Court granted Defendant Creighton University’s (“Creighton”) Motion for
Summary Judgment on June 4, 2013, dismissing Moschos’s claims and entering
judgment for Creighton (Filing Nos. 46 and 47). The Court determined that Moschos
failed to meet her burden under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §
201, et seq. of demonstrating that she worked above her scheduled hours without
compensation, and that Creighton knew or should have known that she was working
overtime. Moschos presented no evidence that Creighton knew she worked overtime,
and did not present any evidence of her actual damages.

The Court dismissed

Moschos’s FLSA claims and her state law claims under the Nebraska Wage Payment
and Collection Act (“NWPCA”), Neb Rev. Stat. § 48-1231 (Reissue 2004). Moschos now
moves the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and Order, arguing that Moschos “met
the current Supreme Court and 8th Circuit standards for adducing proof of damages….”

(Filing No. 48.) Moschos also submits a summary of her overtime hours worked in
2007, which she argues are identical to her hours worked in the relevant claims period.
STANDARD
Motions to reconsider are governed by Nebraska Civil Rule 60.1, which states,
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court will ordinarily deny them
without a showing of (1) manifest error in the prior ruling or (2) new facts or legal
authority, neither of which could have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.”
DISCUSSION
Moschos does not identify any manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling, nor does
she identify any new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the
Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. Moschos’s summary of her hours worked is
derived from evidence that was already before the Court when considering Creighton’s
Motion. The only additional fact submitted is the actual number of overtime hours that
Moschos claims for 2007. Having considered the Plaintiff’s brief and evidence, for the
reasons already stated in the Court’s prior order, Moschos has not burden of proof, nor
has she demonstrated that reconsideration is appropriate.
Accordingly, the Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 48) filed by Plaintiff, Ileana
Moschos is denied.
Dated this 15th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/Laurie Smith Camp
Chief United States District Judge
2