Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:03-cv-01097_de95> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-01097_de95 RegisterActionDate "2005-02-17" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-01097_de95 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan : This matter is before the court on Plaintiff A9A3639 motion for reconsideration and Plaintiff Last Call For God's Love Ministry a/k/a Last Call Development Center's ("Last Call") motion for reconsideration. This matter is also before the court on Last Call's request for leave to allow an attorney to file an appearance on behalf of Last Call, and on 31C309D and A9A3639 requests for leave to file pro se appearances. I. Motions For Reconsideration A9A3639 and Last Call have filed a motion for reconsideration asking this court to vacate its order issued on November 9, 2004, dismissing the case. Plaintiff 31C309D filed a motion for reconsideration of our November 9 order seeking to reinstate the claims brought by him and on November 23, 2004, we granted the motion. Subsequently on December 7, 2004, Plaintiff A9A3639 and Plaintiff Last Call filed motions for reconsideration of our dismissal and moved to reinstate the claims brought by them as well. We concluded that neither A9A3639 nor Last Call had shown that, in regards to the claims brought by them, a vacation of our prior ruling was warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) ("Rule 59(e)") or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) ("Rule 60(b)") and on December 14, 2004, we denied the motions for reconsideration. On January 27, 2004, A9A3639 and Last Call filed the instant combined motion for reconsideration asking us to reconsider our dismissal of their claims. A9A3639 and Last Call's instant motion for reconsideration was filed well after the ten business days allowed for the filing of a Rule 59(e) motion and thus, they can only proceed at this juncture pursuant to Rule 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a); Talano v. Northwestern Medical Faculty Foundation, Inc., 273 F.3d 757, 762 (7th Cir. 2001); U.S. v. Deutsch, 981 F.2d 299, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). A court should grant a Rule 60(b) motion "only in exceptional circumstances" because "[r]elief under Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy...." Talano, 273 F.3d at 762(quoting Provident Sav. Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 698 (7th Cir.1995)). A9A3639 and Last Call have failed to show that a vacation of our prior ruling is warranted under Rule 60(b) and therefore we deny both motions for reconsideration. We also note that Andea 31C309D or A9A3639 and Last call have failed to show, even under the Rule 59(e) standard, that a vacation is warranted.? II. Requests to File Appearances We deny Last Call's request for leave to allow an attorney to file an appearance on behalf of Last Call since all claims brought by Last Call have been dismissed. We deny A9A3639 request for leave to file a pro se appearance as moot since all claims brought by her have been dismissed. 31C309D requests leave to file his pro se appearance which already appears on the court record and we grant his motion. Judge's staff mailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/17/2005)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-01097_de95 AdministrativeID "86" @default.
- ilnd;;1:03-cv-01097_de95 OntologyLabel minute_entry @default.