Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 5 of
5
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 RegisterActionDate "2016-03-11" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable John W. Darrah: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration 30 is denied. "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 Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1269 (7th Cir. 1996). A manifest error "is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party"; it is the "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs have not presented new evidence or demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact on the merits. Plaintiffs also argue that res judicata does not bar the request for mandamus or injunctive relief because the parties in the present action are not the same as in state court. However, "[s]trict identity of the parties is not necessary" for res judicata when "successive parties... adequately represent the same legal interests." Donovan v. Estate of Fitzsimmons, 778 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1985). Here, Plaintiff Kowalksi added Plaintiff 4552A47 after filing her Complaint. 09062FF adequately represented the same legal interests as 4552A47 at the state-court level and res judicata still applies. Mailed notice(maf) (Entered: 03/11/2016)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 AdministrativeID "35" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 hasJudgeReference SJ000217 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de33 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-01891_de28 @default.