Parisi v. Mathias Heck, Jr. Montgomery County Prosecuting Attorney, individually an in his official capacity et al

Filing 62

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 59). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/9/2015. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
GEORGIANNA I. PARISI,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 3:14-cv-346

District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

MATHIAS HECK, JR., et al.,

Defendant.

:

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 59) for the Magistrate Judge
to reconsider his Order denying Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint (“Order,” ECF No.
58).
Courts disfavor motions for reconsideration because they consume a court’s scarce time
for attention to a matter that has already been decided. They are subject to limitations based on
that disfavor.
As a general principle, motions for reconsideration are looked
upon with disfavor unless the moving party demonstrates: (1) a
manifest error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence which was
not available previously to the parties; or (3) intervening authority.
Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3rd Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 476 U.S. 1171, 90 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1986).

1

Meekison v. Ohio Dep't of Rehabilitation & Correction, 181 F.R.D. 571, 572 (S.D. Ohio
1998)(Marbley, J.). Plaintiff grounds her Motion for Reconsideration in claims that the Order is
based on manifest error of law.
First of all, she notes the Order claims she had not shown good cause for delaying her
Motion to Amend until nearly six months after the deadline for moving to amend (ECF No. 59,
PageID 646). She claims she did so by pointing out that all deadlines in the case “have been
dispensed with by this Court.” Parisi is presumably referring to the Joint Motion (ECF No. 45)
which was based on the representation that
Lay Witness Disclosures are due August 3rd. The Parties agreed in
their Rule 26 filing to stay all discovery pending early dispositive
motions. The Parties are not in a position, absent the benefit of
discovery, to make a full disclosure of lay witnesses. The resources
of all Parties would be benefitted by a stay of all future dates and
deadlines pending the issuance of a decision on the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 42).
Id. . The Court did not “dispense” with all deadlines. It stayed future deadlines pending a
decision on the Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. At the time the Court granted that
Motion on July 31, 2015, the deadline for amendments was long past.
Plaintiff did not move to amend until many months after the deficiencies in her pleading
were pointed out by Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) Motions. The Motion to Reconsider is
therefore DENIED.

October 9, 2015.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2