Davis v. Joseph J. Magnolia, Inc.
2012 WL 4466488, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139723, 893 F.Supp.2d 165 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) cannot be used to re-litigate issues already decided, or to submit evidence and arguments that could have been presented during the original motion.
Facts:
- In April 2005, Joseph J. Magnolia, Inc. hired Blyden A. Davis, an African-American man, as a heavy equipment operator.
- In May and June 2005, Davis received several warnings regarding his job performance and was transferred to a new crew supervised by Foreman Jeff Forsythe.
- In July 2005, a coworker informed Davis that Forsythe had referred to him using a racial slur.
- On October 17, 2005, Davis filed an internal complaint with the company regarding Forsythe's alleged discriminatory conduct.
- Following an investigation, the company issued a written warning to Forsythe for his behavior.
- On November 2, 2005, Davis received a written 'final warning before discharge' for alleged insubordination and failure to take a required training class.
- In January 2006, Davis received another written warning for damaging company property and failing to report it.
- In May 2006, Joseph J. Magnolia, Inc. terminated Davis's employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Blyden A. Davis sued his former employer, Joseph J. Magnolia, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the DCHRA.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiff's claims.
- On September 30, 2011, the district court issued an interlocutory order granting summary judgment for the defendant on all claims except for a single Title VII discrimination claim related to a November 2005 written warning.
- Following that ruling, the defendant filed a motion for reconsideration, asking the court to grant summary judgment on the remaining discrimination claim.
- The plaintiff filed a cross-motion for reconsideration, asking the court to reverse its grant of summary judgment on his retaliation claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a party successfully move for reconsideration of an interlocutory summary judgment ruling by presenting evidence that was available at the time of the original motion or by rearguing legal theories the court has already rejected?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
No. A party may not successfully move for reconsideration by presenting evidence that was available but not submitted during the original motion or by rearguing issues the court has already decided. Motions for reconsideration are granted only when justice requires, such as to correct clear errors or to account for newly discovered evidence or changes in law, not to give a party a second opportunity to make its case. The court denied the defendant's motion because it improperly attempted to introduce 'supplemental' evidence that was available, but not submitted, during the original summary judgment briefing. Citing depositions and declarations that pre-dated the initial motion, the court found this was not 'newly-discovered' evidence. Furthermore, the defendant's argument that a written warning cannot be an 'adverse employment action' was a rehash of a legal theory the court had already considered and rejected in its prior ruling. The court denied the plaintiff's motion because it also failed to meet the standard for reconsideration. The plaintiff's argument for his retaliation claim rested on the temporal proximity between his complaint and the subsequent warning, but the court reiterated that under circuit precedent, 'positive evidence beyond mere proximity is required.' Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient for a jury to find that the employer's stated, non-discriminatory reasons for the warnings were pretextual.
Analysis:
This opinion strongly reinforces the principle of finality in litigation and the high bar for securing reconsideration of an interlocutory order. It serves as a clear warning to practitioners that they must present all available evidence and arguments in their initial dispositive motions, as courts will not permit reconsideration to be used as a 'second bite at the apple' to correct for inadequate briefing. The decision distinguishes sharply between 'newly-discovered' and 'newly-submitted' evidence, solidifying the idea that a lack of diligence is not a basis for relief. This case effectively limits the scope of Rule 54(b) motions to their intended purpose: correcting manifest errors of law or fact, not allowing parties to bolster a previously unsuccessful argument.
