Free Memorandum in Opposition to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

e 3:03-cv-00644-CFD Document 334-2 Filed 05/15/2008 Page 1 of 1
Slip Copy Page i
Slip Copy, 2007 WL 4800719 (D.Conn.)
(Cite as: 2007 WL 4800719 (D.Conn.))
H words, that might reasonably be expected to alter
Crawford v. First Colony Life Ins. Co. the conclusion reached by the court."S/mw/er v.
D.Conn.,2007. CSX Tmnsp., [nc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Ci1‘.l995)
Only the Westiaw citation is currently available. (citations omitted). There are three rounds that
3
United States District Court,D. Connecticut. justify granting a motion for reconsideration: (1) an
Doris CRAWFORD, Plaintiff} intervening change in controlling law; (2) the avail-
v. ability of newly discovered evidence; and (3) the
FERST COLONY LIFE INSURANCE CO., De- need to correct clear error or prevent manifest in-
fendant. justice. Virgin Att'. Airways, Ltd. v. Nar'! Mediation
Civil Action No. 3-07-cv—l13(JCH). Bd., 956 F.2d i.245, 1255 (2d Cir.l992). That the
court overlooked controlling law or material facts
DEQ 21 2001 before it may also entitle a party to succeed on a
. . . motion to reconsider. Eisemcrrm v. Greene, 204
Charles Kenneth Norris, Clnnrgo Leone & Maruzo, amd 393, 395 H. 2 (2d CKQOOO) (pc? Cmiam) (KTO
Norwich CT’ for Pimnufi be entitled to reargurnent a party must demonstrate
Steven M. Richard, Nixon Peabody LLP, Provid- ’ . . .
cc RI {OT Defendant that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or
an ’ ’ ` factuai matters that were put before it on the under-
RULING iying motion") (internal quotation marks omitted).
JANET C_ HALL District Judgg First Colony does not argue that there has been any
sl On Nowmbm, 26, 2007 this court denied d€_ intervening change in the law, nor that there is
fcndam, First Colony Life Insurance,) Cuts (rtmfst newly discovered evidence. See Deffs Mem. Fur-
Cokmyn) Motion fm Summary Judgmgm Sw Rug therrnore, First Colony does not argue that the court
mg (Dm; Ng 21). In that Ruling, the court Ordered overlooked controlling law, but merely disagrees
First Cokmy to Show cause Why judgment Shouid with the court's interpretation of the controlling
me enter ra- planner, Doris onward. See ia it in lm Sat td-Th—‘=r¢f·¤r¤» Fini Cekmv his mt me the
In response to this Order {0 ghgw cause ph-St SU‘i<>t Standard for reconsideration. As such, First
casey submitted it site cass Memorandum. See Cem he tried is shew tees is t¤ Why Me-
Defendanps Show Cause Memo. (·tDBf_»S ment should not enter for Crawford.
Mem.")(I)oc. No. 22). This Memorandum essen-
tially moves the court to reconsider its Ruling on CONCLUSION
the Motion for Summary Judgment, and thus the
court will review it under the standard for reconsid- The clerk is ordered to enter judgment for the
eration. See ag. id'. at i2 ("First Colony respect- piaintiff.
fully requests that this Court reconsider its ruling
and grant Defendants Motion for Summary Judg— S0 ORDEREH
m"’“‘”)‘ D.Conn.,200”/.
The Second Circuit has held that “§t]he standard for Ciawfwd V· Fi1‘S¤C¤l0¤>’ Lifc I“S· C°·
granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and Slip C°i°Y= 2007 WL 48907%) (D·C°““·)
reconsideration will generally he denied unless the END OF DOCUMENT
moving party can point to controlling decrszons or
data that the court overlooked-matters, in other
© 2008 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.