The Alliance Group, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Company et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that The Alliance Group, Inc.'s Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 26 ) and Motion to Add Additional Evidence (Filing No. 29 ) are both denied. Ordered by Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (JSF)
8:21-cv-00188-RFR-SMB Doc # 35 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 1 of 2 - Page ID # 915
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
THE ALLIANCE GROUP, INC.,
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY and ZURICH AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS,
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff The Alliance Group, Inc.’s (“Alliance”)
Motion to Reconsider (Filing No. 26) and Motion to Add Additional Evidence (Filing
No. 29) to that motion. Without specifying a procedural basis for its motions, Alliance
asks the Court to (1) “set this matter for an evidentiary hearing on the nature of the inclusion
of the choice of law clause in” the insurance policy it obtained from defendants Zurich
American Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company of Illinois’s
(collectively, “Zurich”) and (2) rescind the Court’s November 16, 2021, Memorandum and
Order (Filing No. 25) requiring arbitration. In a one-page brief in support of its primary
motion, Alliance argues that the Court’s order turns on an erroneous factual finding.
Zurich opposes both motions. According to Zurich, “Alliance has not identified a
proper basis for reconsideration.” Urging the Court to treat the motion to reconsider as one
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, 1 Zurich contends Alliance has not shown a clear
or manifest error of law or fact as required in cases like Jones v. Casey’s General Stores,
551 F. Supp. 2d 848, 854 (S.D. Iowa 2008) and Chatmon v. Kelly, No. 5:16-CV-133
Rule 54(b) provides that “any order or other decision . . . that adjudicates fewer
than all the claims . . . does not end the action as to any of the claims . . . and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims.”
8:21-cv-00188-RFR-SMB Doc # 35 Filed: 01/07/22 Page 2 of 2 - Page ID # 916
KGB/JTR, 2018 WL 11166721, at *1 (E.D. Ark. Feb. 15, 2018). Zurich also challenges
Alliance’s motions on the merits. Alliance did not file a reply brief.
After careful review of the record and the parties’ submissions, including Alliance’s
proposed “additional evidence,” the Court finds Alliance has not provided a compelling
reason for the Court to alter its choice-of-law decision in this matter. A motion to
reconsider serves a very “limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407,
414 (8th Cir. 1988) (quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251
(7th Cir.), as amended, 835 F.2d 710 (7th Cir. 1987)). At root, Alliance’s argument is
simply a new spin on an argument it already made. A motion to reconsider cannot be used
to bolster or relitigate prior arguments or “to ‘introduce new evidence that could have been
adduced during pendency’ of the motion at issue.” Arnold v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc., 627
F.3d 716, 721 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagerman, 839 F.2d at 414).
For those reasons, The Alliance Group, Inc.’s Motion to Reconsider (Filing
No. 26) and Motion to Add Additional Evidence (Filing No. 29) are both denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 7th day of January 2022.
BY THE COURT:
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?