United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
May 20, 2015
SANDRA HALL, Plaintiffs,
ANN MARIE FLANNERY, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
STACI M. YANDLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Application of Missouri Law. (Doc. 147). On April 14, 2015, the Court entered an order denying Defendants' Motion to Apply Missouri Law at Doc. 145. (Doc. 129).
Rule 60(b) permits a court to reconsider a prior order or judgment on certain grounds, such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing party, or "any other reason that justifies relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). See also Musch v. Domtar Industries, Inc., 587 F.3d 857, 861 (7th Cir. 2009). A motion for reconsideration is not a proper vehicle to reprise arguments that were rejected, Patel v. Gonzales, 442 F.3d 1011, 1016 (7th Cir.2006), or to raise new arguments that could and should have been advanced in the original briefing. Mosley v. City of Chicago, 252 F.R.D. 445, 447 (N.D. Ill. 2008). Additionally, relief under Rule 60(b) "is an extraordinary remedy that is to be granted only in exceptional circumstances." Provident Savings Bank v. Popovich, 71 F.3d 696, 698 (7th Cir. 1995).
Here, Defendants have provided no legal basis for the Court to amend or modify its order at Doc. 145. Disagreement with the Court's ruling is not a proper ground for a motion to reconsider. Navarro v. UIC Med. Ctr., 165 F.Supp.2d 785, 788 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Defendants' Motion both reprises and expands upon arguments that have been rejected by this Court and raises new arguments that should have been advanced in the original briefing. The Court finds that Defendants' Motion does not meet any of the factors for reconsideration. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Reconsider the Court's Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Application of Missouri Law. (Doc. 147) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.