Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Jimmie Hershey v. Exxonmobil Oil

October 3, 2012

JIMMIE HERSHEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Thomas Marten, Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The matter is before the court on two motions by "the Farrar class," which has submitted a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 310), and a Motion to Stay (Dkt. 319). For the reasons provided herein, these motions are denied.

The court notes that in addition to their arguments on the merits, the respondent plaintiff class and ExxonMobil also vigorously object to the motions of the Farrar class on standing grounds. The motions are made by no party recognized in the action, nor on behalf of any specific class member. The parties note that the time for opting out of the proposed settlement has passed, and fewer than ten of the approximately 8500 class members have chosen to do so. Additionally, a few individuals have formally objected to the settlement, and can now actively and directly participate in the action.

The court finds that it need not resolve the issue. The court denies both motions for the reasons set out below.

Reconsideration

First, the representatives of the Farrar class seek reconsideration of the court's Order (Dkt. 307) which denied their request to partially dissolve the injunction designed to assist and aid in the efficient settlement of all class claims in the present forum. The court finds no basis for reconsideration, and the request is hereby denied.

A motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 59(e) may be granted to correct manifest errors, or in light of newly discovered evidence; such a motion is directed not at initial consideration but reconsideration, and is appropriate only if the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts, or applicable law, has mistakenly decided issues not presented for determination, or the moving party produces new evidence which it could not have obtained through the exercise of due diligence. Anderson v. United Auto Workers, 738 F.Supp. 441, 442 (D. Kan. 1989). A motion to reconsider is not "a second chance for the losing party to make its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed." Voelkel v. GMC, 846 F.Supp. 1482 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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