United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
June 2, 2005.
CHRISTOPHER KOLUPA, Plaintiff,
ROSELLE PARK DISTRICT, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HARRY LEINENWEBER, District Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Christopher Kolupa's motions for
leave to file an amended complaint and for reconsideration of the
Court's 4/28/05 ruling granting Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The Court notes that
Plaintiff did not properly notice his motions before the Court,
nonetheless, the Court will rule on the pending motions.
"Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function; to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence." Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co.,
561 F. Supp. 656 (N.D. Ill. 1976), aff'd, 736 F.2d 388 (7th
Cir. 1984). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where a court
has patently misunderstood a party, made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented, made an error not of reasoning but
of apprehension, or there has been a significant change in the
law or facts since the court's decision. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester
Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191-92 (7th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff has not presented the Court with any new Title VII
law, nor has Plaintiff pointed to new evidence that was not
available during the Court's initial consideration of the motion
to dismiss. Plaintiff's generalized motion is not sufficient
under the narrow reconsideration standard and is therefore denied.
Plaintiff also asks for leave to file a second amended
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). The case
was terminated upon the Court's motion to dismiss ruling and the
Court denies Plaintiff's pending motion to reconsider, therefore
the motion is denied as moot. The Court notes to Plaintiff that
even if the motion to amend was procedurally appropriate, neither
the Plaintiff's generalized plea for judicial relief in his
motion, nor the six statements included in the motion for
reconsideration would cure the deficiencies in his amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.