United States District Court, D. Kansas
GARY L. ABRAHAM, Plaintiff,
HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., et al., Defendants.
P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
has filed a motion (ECF No. 160) for reconsideration of the
court's order granting in part and denying in part his
second motion for leave to amend his complaint (ECF No. 158).
Because plaintiff offers no reason that would justify
reconsideration of the court's order, his motion is
December 4, 2018, the court entered an order that, in
relevant part, granted plaintiff's request to add Hilton
Honors Worldwide LLC as a defendant, and to dismiss as
defendants Hilton Worldwide Inc., Hilton Domestic Operating
Company, Inc., and Hilton Franchise Holding LLC. By
interlineation, the court amended the complaint to substitute
Hilton Honors Worldwide LLC in place of Hilton Domestic
Operating Company, Inc. The next day, plaintiff filed his
motion for reconsideration, seeking to reinstate Hilton
Domestic Operating Company, Inc., as a defendant.
for reconsideration may be granted only if the moving party
can establish: “(1) an intervening change in
controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3)
the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” The decision whether to grant or deny a
motion for reconsideration is committed to the court's
discretion. A motion for reconsideration should not be
used to “rehash previously rejected arguments or to
offer new legal theories or facts.” Such a motion
“is not a second chance for the losing party to make
its strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously
motion, plaintiff asserts that new facts justify reinstating
Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc., as a defendant.
Specifically, plaintiff states:
Mysteriously the early morning of December 04, 2018 plaintiff
went back to the same defendant website and they had made
some major changes to state that, now, Hilton Domestic
Operating Company Inc. is the Hilton entity that is the data
controller for all guest data and operates, among other
things, Hilton's marketing activities. Plaintiff believes
now they Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc, are an
defendant in this matter because they controller Register
Guest data along with Hilton Reservations Worldwide LLC,
plaintiff discovery in reference to the defendants hotel in
question and Plaintiff beliefs that they played a major part
now in plaintiff causes of actions.
court disagrees that the “new facts” asserted by
plaintiff justify amending the complaint a third time to
reinstate Hilton Domestic Operating Company, Inc. The fact
that an entity may possess or control documents relevant to a
cause of action is an insufficient basis to join that entity
as a defendant. In addition, plaintiff does not explain
his conclusory statement that he now believes Hilton Domestic
Operating Company, Inc., “played a major part” in
his causes of action.
remainder of plaintiff's motion discusses caselaw
defining the alter-ego doctrine. Plaintiff does not suggest
how that doctrine applies in this case. In any event, this
legal doctrine has not previously been raised in this action,
and as noted above, a motion for reconsideration is not the
place to offer new legal theories.
plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 160) is denied.
D. Kan. Rule 7.3. See also Servants
of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000); Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d
941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995).
Wright ex rel. Trust Co. of Kan. v.
Abbott Labs., Inc., 259 F.3d 1226, 1235-36 (10th Cir.