Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

James D. Lammers Kurtz v. United States of America et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


June 20, 2011

JAMES D. LAMMERS KURTZ, PLAINTIFF,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard W. Roberts United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

An April 26, 2011 Memorandum Opinion and Order granted the motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction of all defendants except for the United States and the unnamed defendants. The plaintiff moves to reconsider.*fn1 The motion will be decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which governs interlocutory orders, since the Memorandum Opinion was not a final judgment that terminated the litigation. See Williams v. Savage, 569 F. Supp. 2d 99, 108 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting that the "standard of review for interlocutory decisions differs from the standards applied to final judgments"). A district court may revisit its interlocutory decisions "at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities[,]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), as justice requires. Am. Fed'n of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Bullock, 605 F. Supp. 2d 251, 257 (D.D.C. 2009).

Relevant considerations include "'whether the court patently misunderstood the parties, made a decision beyond the adversarial issues presented, made an error in failing to consider controlling decisions or data, or whether a controlling or significant change in the law has occurred[.]'" Id. (quoting In Def. of Animals v. Nat'l Insts. of Health, 543 F. Supp. 2d 70, 75 (D.D.C. 2008)). The moving party must demonstrate that "some harm would accompany a denial of the motion to reconsider[.]" In Def. of Animals, 543 F. Supp. 2d at 76. Ultimately, a court has wide discretion in deciding a motion for reconsideration and can revise its earlier decision if such relief is necessary under the circumstances. Judicial Watch v. Dep't of Army, 466 F. Supp. 2d 112, 123 (D.D.C. 2008). Lammers has made no showing that he is entitled to reconsideration on the basis of any of the relevant considerations. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion [53] for reconsideration be, and hereby is, DENIED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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