Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 RegisterActionDate "2018-08-22" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER: Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Request for Reconsideration of Order Granting Trans Ova's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Motion for Reconsideration") 274 , referring to the Court's order dated August 9, 2018 262 . "Notwithstanding the district court's broad discretion to alter its interlocutory orders, the motion to reconsider is not at the disposal of parties who want to rehash old arguments." Nat'l Bus. Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Prods., Inc., 115 F. Supp. 2d 1250, 1256 (D. Colo. 2000). "Rather, as a practical matter, to succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Id. "A motion to reconsider should be denied unless it clearly demonstrates manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence." Id. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration does not satisfy this standard. Rather, and without citing any new intervening appellate authority in support, it merely rehashes arguments the Court has already rejected (such as the proper interpretation of relevant authorities) or simply disagrees with the Court's rulings. The Motion for Reconsideration is therefore summarily DENIED. SO ORDERED by Judge William J. Martinez on 08/22/2018. Text Only Entry (wjmlc1) (Entered: 08/22/2018)" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 AdministrativeID "276" @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 OntologyLabel order @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de261 @default.
- cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de275 hasReferenceToOtherEntry cod;;1:17-cv-00944_de273 @default.