L.E.A. et al v. Bedford County School Board et al
Filing
32
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Norman K. Moon on July 21, 2015. (ca)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LYNCHBURG DIVISION
L.E.A., et al.,
CIVIL NO. 6:15-cv-00014
Plaintiffs,
v.
Memorandum Opinion
BEDFORD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, et al.,
Defendants.
JUDGE NORMAN K. MOON
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 25).
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of my order denying their Motion for Preliminary Injunctive
Relief. For the reasons that follow, I will deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
I.
A court may reconsider a nonfinal judgment.
“The purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered
evidence,” and because of the interest in finality, “courts should grant motions for
reconsideration sparingly.” Dayoub v. Penn-Del Directory Co., 90 F. Supp. 2d 636, 637 (E.D.
Pa. 2000) (citations and quotations omitted); see also Madison River Mgmt. Co. v. Bus. Mgmt.
Software Corp., 402 F. Supp. 2d 617, 619 (M.D.N.C. 2005) (“A motion to reconsider is
appropriate when the court has obviously misapprehended a party’s position or the facts or
applicable law, or when the party produces new evidence that could not have been obtained
through the exercise of due diligence.”). A motion to reconsider may also be appropriate where
the Court has misunderstood a party or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues
presented by the parties. Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101
(E.D. Va. 1983). A controlling or significant change in the law or the facts also provides a
potential basis for a motion for reconsideration. Id.
II.
With respect to my ruling on Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, Plaintiffs
point to no intervening change in law nor has it submitted any evidence that was previously
unavailable. Plaintiffs merely repeat their argument from their brief in support of preliminary
injunctive relief and ask this Court to arrive at a different conclusion. A motion to reconsider is
inappropriate where it merely reiterates previous arguments. Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at
101 (denying a motion for reconsideration where it “served no function at all, other than
reiteration”). Plaintiffs also seek to introduce new evidence in an effort to show that the equities
weigh in its favor. Because a likelihood of success on the merits is required for preliminary
injunctive relief, Plaintiffs must first show that my ruling in this respect was deficient. Yet
Plaintiffs have not done so, and there is therefore no basis for granting Plaintiffs’ motion.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (docket no. 25) will be
denied by separate order.
ENTERED: July 21, 2015
-2-
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?