Gallo, Elisa v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 111

Transmission of Notice of Appeal, Docketing Statement, Orders, Judgment and Docket Sheet to Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals re: 108 Notice of Appeal, (Attachments: # 1 Docketing Statement, # 2 Order No.: 97, # 3 Judgment No.: 98, # 4 Order No.: 106, # 5 Order No.: 107, # 6 Docket Sheet) (lak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

ELISA S. GALLO, MD,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MAYO CLINIC HEALTH SYSTEM—FRANCISCAN
MEDICAL CENTER, INC. and
MICHAEL WHITE, MD,

15-cv-304-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Elisa S. Gallo seeks reconsideration of the court’s summary judgment
decision under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e). Dkt. 104.
To succeed on a motion under these rules, Gallo would need to show a change in the
law, new evidence, or a manifest error or law or fact. Schroeder v. Drankiewicz, No. 10-cv-232,
2012 WL 1593961, at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 4, 2012). Post-judgment motions promote
efficiency by allowing district judges to fix their own errors, but they are not a chance to for
the losing party to make new arguments or to put a new spin on the facts before making an
appeal. See Havoco of Am., Ltd. v. Sumitomo Corp. of Am., 971 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (7th Cir.
1992).
Gallo points to no change in the law or new evidence; she contends that the summary
judgment decision has manifest errors. I have reviewed Gallo’s motion and the summary
judgment decision, and I see no manifest error. Some of her arguments are slight variations
from those she made in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. To the extent
that she is advancing new legal theories, new theories are not appropriately raised under in a

post-judgment motion. But for the most part, Gallo’s motion simply reargues issues that were
discussed thoroughly in the summary judgment decision.
Gallo’s motion takes a selective and superficial view of the summary judgment record.
I’ll cite just one example to illustrate the broader problem. Gallo argues now that Dr.
Lebwohl sent her an email that showed White’s “fair” ratings prevented her from getting the
Mount Sinai credentials and the job at Refuah. Dkt. 104, at 10-11. But Gallo ignores the
hearsay problem I pointed out. Dkt. 97, at 15. Dr. Lebwohl also does not have first-hand
knowledge of the material facts; he based his statements to Gallo on what others told him.
Gallo does not have admissible evidence to show that White’s “fair” ratings caused her to lose
the job at Refuah, and that gap alone is fatal to her case.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Elisa S. Gallo’s motion for amended findings of fact
and conclusions of law and for amended judgment, Dkt. 104, is DENIED.
Entered February 23, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

2