Wei et al v. Rocky Point International LLC

Filing 69

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/9/2017 DENYING 67 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 8/4/2017 Order. (cc: all counsel) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SEAH CHEE WEI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-CV-1282-JPS

ROCKY POINT INTERNATIONAL LLC,

ORDER

Defendant.

On July 31, 2017, Defendant Rocky Point International LLC (“Rocky
Point”) filed a motion for leave to amend its answer, to file a cross-motion
for summary judgment, and for protective order, attempting to raise the
issue of collateral estoppel based on a ruling rendered in parallel judicial
proceedings in Singapore. (Docket #62). The Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion in an order issued on August 4, 2017. (Docket
#66). The Court permitted Rocky Point to raise the collateral estoppel
defense, but only in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment and not as a standalone cross-motion for summary judgment.
Id. at 3–4. Rocky Point has now moved for reconsideration of the Court’s
decision to deny it leave to file a separate cross-motion for summary
judgment. (Docket #67).
The Court must deny Rocky Point’s request for reconsideration.
First, it cites no rule, case, or any authority whatsoever for its request for

Page 1 of 3

reconsideration. (Docket #68 at 1–2).1 Indeed, the entirety of its argument
is a two-page critique of the Court’s ruling. Id. “Motions for
reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law
or fact or to present newly discovered evidence.” Caisse Nationale de Credit
v. CBI Indus., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996) (quotation omitted);
Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987).
Rocky Point has not expended even a modicum of effort to show that the
Court committed a manifest error of law or fact, nor has it pointed to any
newly discovered evidence relevant to the Court’s decision. Rocky Point’s
latest filing merely expresses its disappointment with the Court’s decision,
but that has never been an accepted basis for reconsideration. Caisse
Nationale, 90 F.3d at 1269 (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum
for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could
have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.”). The
Court considered Rocky Point’s reasons for wanting to advance a separate
cross-motion for summary judgment and rejected them. See (Docket #66 at
2–3). Rocky Point’s request for reconsideration will, therefore, be denied.
The Court closes by noting that this is the second time it has had to
expend its limited resources addressing an undoubtedly meritless request
from Rocky Point. See (Docket #43 at 3–5) (denying Rocky Point’s second,
nearly identical motion to dismiss for failure to join indispensable parties).
A two-page motion for reconsideration which merely repeats its earlier
arguments, is bereft of citation to authority or the record, and was filed
the next business day after the relevant order was issued, suggests that
Of course, the correct rule in a pre-judgment request for reconsideration
is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which permits the court to revisit any
order before a final judgment is entered. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
1

Page 2 of 3

Rocky Point did not perform a reasonable inquiry as to whether its
arguments had legal or evidentiary support. Future frivolous filings will
not be tolerated and may well subject Rocky Point to appropriate
sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Rocky Point’s motion for reconsideration of
the Court’s August 4, 2017 Order (Docket #67) be and the same is hereby
DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 9th day of August, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 3 of 3