Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Amy J. St. Eve than Assigned Judge
The Court denies Defendants' Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider the Court's October 25, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Order .
O[ For further details see text below.] Notices mailed by Judicial staff.
Before the Court is Defendants' Rule 54(b) motion to reconsider the Court's October 25, 2011 Order denying Defendants' motion to transfer this case to the District Court of Puerto Rico. For the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants' motion.
On October 25, 2011, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer the action (the "October Order"). See R. 46; Ace Hardware Int'l Holdings, Ltd. v. Masso Expo Corp., No. 11-cv-3928, 2011 WL 5077686 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 25, 2011).*fn1 The Court denied Defendants' motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) on the grounds that 1) venue in both Illinois and Puerto Rico is proper; 2) Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that transfer to Puerto Rico will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and that it will promote the interests of justice. Specifically, the Court found that the private and public interest factors, as a whole, weighed in favor of Plaintiff's choice of venue in Illinois. Id. at *12-14.
On November 22, 2011, Defendants filed their motion to reconsider. Plaintiff filed its written response on January 4, 2012, and Defendants filed their written reply on January 18, 2012.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 54(b) permits the Court to exercise its inherent authority to reconsider its interlocutory orders. See Moses H. Cone Mem. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. 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). As the Seventh Circuit recently explained, "[i]t is well established that a motion to reconsider is only appropriate where a court has misunderstood a party, where the court has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, where the court has made an error of apprehension (not of reasoning), where a significant change in the law has occurred, or where significant new facts have been discovered." Broaddus v. Shields, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 6396542, at *11 (7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011) (citing Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). Because of these exacting standards, issues appropriate for reconsideration "rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." ...