Carolina Internet, LTD. v. TW Telecom Holdings Inc.

Filing 35

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 9/26/2011. (tmg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
No. 3:11-CV-00310
CAROLINA INTERNET, LTD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TW TELECOM HOLDINGS, INC,
Defendant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s Order to Change Venue [D.I. 29, 30], Defendant’s Response [D.I. 32], and Plaintiff’s
Reply [D.I. 33].
On July 25, 2011, this Court issued a written Order setting forth its decision to transfer
this matter to the District of Colorado. [D.I. 21].
Rule 54(b) provides in part that “any order or other decision, however designated, that
adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does
not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the
entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(b) (2009); American Canoe Assoc., Inc. v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514-15
(4th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing motions to reconsider a final judgment with motions to reconsider
interlocutory orders and explaining that less stringent standard applies to the latter); see also
Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983) (reconsideration is
discretionary). Motions for reconsideration of an interlocutory order are appropriately granted
upon (1) the discovery of new evidence, (2) an intervening development or change in the

controlling law, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Pender
v. Bank of America, Corp., 2011 WL 62115 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 2011) (internal citations omitted);
Faris v. SFX Entm’t, Inc., 2006 WL 3690632, *8 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 12, 2006) (“Reconsideration
by re-argument is not proper under Rule 54.”).
Having reviewed the briefing submitted by both parties, the Court is not inclined to
reconsider its earlier decision transferring this case to the District of Colorado. The Court’s
previous decision does not amount to clear error or work any manifest injustice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration [D.I. 29,
30] of the Court’s July 25, 2011 Order [D.I. 21] is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: September 26, 2011