Matches in SCALES for { <scales/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 6 of
6
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 RegisterActionDate "2018-06-20" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman: Coming before the Court on plaintiff Builders Bank, N.A.'s second amended motion to amend or alter the judgment 76 and the Court having reviewed the parties arguments on the record, the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing both 15 cv 6033 and its companion case 16 cv 9940, finds there is no basis for reconsideration of the judgment. Rule 59(e) "enables a district court to correct its own errors, sparing the parties and the appellate courts the burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings." Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir.1995); Ritacca v. Storz Med., A.G., 298 F.R.D. 566, 56869 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (Castillo, C.J.). For a motion to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) to succeed, the movant "must demonstrate a manifest error of law or fact or present newly discovered evidence." Boyd v. Tornier, Inc., 656 F.3d 487, 492 (7th Cir.2011). A "motion to alter or amend a judgment is not appropriately used to advance arguments or theories that could and should have been made before the district court rendered a judgment or to present evidence that was available earlier." LB Credit Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 49 F.3d 1263, 1267 (7th Cir.1995) (internal citations omitted). Nor should a movant seek to rehash previously rejected arguments. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1996). Here, Builders Bank simply takes issue with the Court's ruling dismissing the case and reargues the consolidated motion to dismiss. With regard to the Rule 17 "real party in interest" argument, that was an alternative basis for dismissal and, thus, does not present a good reason for this Court to reopen arguments on this point. Builders Bank remains free to appeal the judgment. See Luevano v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1020 (7th Cir.2013) (quoting Benjamin v. United States, 833 F.2d 669, 671 (7th Cir.1987)). Builders Bank's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment 76 is denied. Plaintiff's motions to alter or amend 69 , 73 are stricken as moot. Mailed notice. (ym, ) (Entered: 06/20/2018)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 AdministrativeID "79" @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de70 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de74 @default.
- ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de80 hasReferenceToOtherEntry ilnd;;1:16-cv-09940_de77 @default.