Epstein Secrets

initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First,

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as "a vehicle for registering disagreement

the Rules of the District Cowl, the Ocderal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, In

les of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, Inc. v. American Hardware Supply Co., 129 F.R.D. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1990). " Southeastern Shee

he just relief for all existing parties. A motion for reconsideration is not for raising matters that could have been raised before, but were not. Bostic v. AT&T of the Virgin Islands, 45 V.I. 553, 312 F. Stepp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.L 2004). 13 EFTA00308336 V. CONCLUSION Manifest injustice will resul

uit favors two purposes for reconsideration, " . to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985) Here, Plaintiffs specify the ground of "manifest injustice," without providing the standard for comparison agains

initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First,

The purpose of a motion for reconsideration "is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). Such motions are not substitutes for appeals, and are not to be used as "a vehicle for registering disagreement