IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
May 25, 2006
WEST AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
KAMADULSKI EXCAVATING & GRADING COMPANY, INC., AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ALTON COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 11, AN ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, S.M. WILSON & COMPANY, A KANSAS CORPORATION, HARRY HAZELTON, AND RANDALL HOLYFIELD, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Before the Court is a motion submitted by Plaintiff West American Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") to reconsider this Court's ruling denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 30). (Doc. 48.) Plaintiff argues that this Court's May 4, 2006 order was wrongly decided, asserting that this Court (1) "erred in finding [Plaintiff] obligated to defendant against allegations of intentional conduct," and (2) "erred in failing to enforce the exclusions for damage to property caused by [Defendant] Kamadulski's operations or work." (Doc. 49.) Defendants S.M. Wilson and District 11 Alton Community School Unit respond in opposition. (Docs. 50, 51.)
Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders "are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them," should be granted "as justice requires," Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 advisory committee's notes, and must be "consonant with equity." John Simmons Co. v. Grier Brothers, 258 U.S. 82, 90-91 (1922); see also 12James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 60App.108 (3d ed. 2004). Such motions "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) (quoting Keene Corp. v. Int'l Fidelity Ins. Co., 561 F. Supp. 656, 665 (N.D. Ill. 1982),aff'd, 736 F.2d 388 (7th Cir. 1984)). "Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion." Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90 F.3d at 1270.
Plaintiff's current motion offers little fresh reasoning and presents no new factual issues or evidence. (Doc. 49.) Instead, Plaintiff largely recycles the same arguments it previously made it its motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Doc. 30.) As the Seventh Circuit has noted, reconsideration is "not an appropriate forum" for these arguments. Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole, 90 F.3d at 1270. To the extent, moreover, that Plaintiff raises new arguments in support of its position, such arguments are not based on new evidence and could have been made in the original motion for judgment on the pleadings. As such, these also are not appropriate matters for consideration by this Court. See id. at 1269-70.*fn1
Accordingly, for the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 25th day of May, 2006.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge