Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fairley v. andrews

June 3, 2011

FAIRLEY
v.
ANDREWS



Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge

CASE TITLE DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration [1230] and grants Defendants' Rule 404(b) and Monell in limine motions in their entirety.

O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.

STATEMENT

On May 3, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion in limine to bar evidence pertaining to Plaintiffs' Monell claim. In the Court's May 3, 2011 minute order, the Court rejected Defendants' overly broad argument that evidence of all CCDOC incidences that did not involve the Plaintiffs or Defendants must be barred and directed Plaintiffs to identify specific incidents at the CCDOC that they seek to introduce at trial. Meanwhile, on May 16, 2011, the Court granted Defendants' motion in limine to bar evidence of alleged prior bad acts that occurred before the July 29, 2000 SI-2 incident under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404(b). Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconsider this ruling in light of the specific instances they have identified pursuant to the Court's May 3, 2011 order. Because these incidences overlap with the Court's Rule 404(b) and Monell in limine rulings, the Court addresses the motion for reconsideration and motions in limine together.

Continued...

Courtroom Deputy KF

Initials:

Because the Court did not commit a manifest error of fact or law, the Court denies Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. See Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) ("A 'manifest error' is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party," instead it "is the 'wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.'") (citation omitted). Further, the Court grants Defendants' Rule 404(b) and Monell motions in their entirety.

LEGAL STANDARD

The Court's earlier in limine rulings did not dispose of this case in its entirety, therefore, the Court reviews Plaintiffs' reconsideration motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which states in relevant part:

any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.

Thus, under Rule 54(b), the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its interlocutory orders because such orders may be revised at any time before the Court enters a final judgment. See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12, 103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) ("every order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge"); Sims v. EGA Prods., Inc., 475 F.3d 865, 870 (7th Cir. 2007) ("non-final orders are generally modifiable"). Motions for reconsideration under Rule 54(b) serve the limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or fact. See Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 251 (7th Cir. 1987); Zurich Capital Mkt., Inc. v. Coglianese, 383 F.Supp.2d 1041, 1045 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

BACKGROUND

To recap, in granting Defendants' other bad acts motion in limine, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.