Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge
The Court denies Prate Installations, Inc.'s motion to reconsider or clarify or alternatively to amend .
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
On January 31, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters' (the "Union") motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). The Court presumes familiarity with its January 31, 2011 ruling and the parties' prior lawsuit in front of this Court, 08 C 5377. Before the Court is Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Prate Installations, Inc.'s ("Prate") motion for reconsideration and to clarify or alternatively to certify an issue for appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). For the following reasons, the Court, in its discretion, denies Prate's motion in its entirety.
Because the Court's January 31, 2011 Memorandum, Opinion, and Order did not dispose of this case in its entirety, the Court reviews Prate's 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.
Accordingly, under Rule 54(b), the Court may exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its interlocutory orders because the Court may revise such orders at any time before entering 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). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is "entrusted to the sound judgment of the district court." Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Resnick, 594 F.3d 562, 568 (7th Cir. 2010).
On August 27, 2010, the Union filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Prate pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") in response to Prate's demands for damages based on violations of the Most Favored Nations ("MFN") clause contained in a series of Collective Bargaining Agreements ("CBAs") between the Union and the Resident Construction Employers Council ("RCEC"). See 29 U.S.C. § 185, et seq.; 28 U.S.C. § 2201, et seq. On September 20, 2010, Prate filed an Answer and Counterclaim alleging a breach of contract claim under Section 301 of the LMRA based on the Union's alleged violations of the MFN clause.
On October 11, 2010, the Union filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) concerning Prate's Counterclaim that the Court granted in part and denied in part on January 31, 2011. Specifically, the Court concluded that claim preclusion barred Prate's claims based on the 2005-2008 CBA, but not the claims based on the 2008-2009 CBA. In addition, the Court ...