McGlynn argues that Batkiewicz’s wrongful retention of P.M.M. RCW 26.27.271 provides that Washington should not assert jurisdiction if the person attempting to invoke jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct. 542, 545, 887 P.2d 468 (1995).In addition to reiterating his original arguments, McGlynn argued in his motion for reconsideration that the superior court should have retained jurisdiction because Batkiewicz engaged in unjustifiable conduct, and that the superior court should have held an evidentiary hearing to determine if McGlynn was denied due process in Poland. Motion for Reconsideration. We review the superior court’s denial of McGlynn’s motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. “‘The burden is on the moving party to show that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.’” Lovely- Coley v.
of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc.
Although this list may not exhaust the potential justifications for reconsideration, exercise of the discretion granted under Rule 54(b) to revisit earlier rulings in the same case is “‘ subject to the caveat that where litigants have once battled for the court’s decision, they should neither be required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.’” U.S. In this District, that “ abstract phrase” is interpreted “narrowly” topermit reconsideration “‘only when the movant demonstrates: (1) an intervening change in thelaw (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available or (3) a clear error in the first order.’” King & Spalding, LLP v.
2011) ( noting that Rule 54(b) “ recognizes inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order ‘as justice requires’” (quoting Greene, 764 F.2d at 22)). 1985) ( Breyer, J.)) see also Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. Motions to reconsider interlocutory orders may be granted at any time before the entry of a final judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), “‘as justice requires.’” Cobell v.
0 kommentar(er)
