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.

Garrett Day LLC v. International Paper Co.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

December 12, 2019

GARRETT DAY LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

          DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DOC. #282)

          WALTER H. RICE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant International Paper Company's ("IPC's") Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. #282, of this Court's March 25, 2019, Decision and Entry, Doc. #260. In relevant part, that Decision and Entry sustained Defendant Brownfield Charities, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, and overruled Defendant IPC's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. Background and Procedural History

         All relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in this Court's March 25, 2019, Decision and Entry, Doc. #260, and will not be repeated here. Generally, Plaintiffs Garrett Day, LLC ("Garrett Day"), and the Ohio Development Services Agency ("ODSA") seek to recover expenses incurred in cleaning up hazardous waste at the site of the former Howard Paper Mill in Dayton, Ohio. Plaintiffs seek relief under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9607, and Ohio's Voluntary Action Program ("VAP"), Ohio Revised Code § 3746.23.

         II. Motions for Reconsideration

         The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration are often treated as motions to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), if filed within 28 days after the entry of judgment. In this case, however, because no final judgment has been entered, Rule 59(e) is inapplicable. See Russell v. GTE Gov't Sys. Corp., 141 Fed.Appx. 429, 436 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding that because there was no final judgment when the court entertained the motion for reconsideration, Rule 59(e) did not apply).

         Nevertheless, "[d]istrict courts have authority both under common law and [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 54(b) to reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a case before entry of final judgment." Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed.Appx. 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). See also Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky. v. McCreary Cty., Ky., 607 F.3d 439, 450 (6th Cir. 2010) (noting that where the district court has not yet entered final judgment, it is "free to reconsider or reverse its decision for any reason.").

         Typically, however, courts will reconsider an interlocutory order only when there is "(1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Louisville/ Jefferson Cty. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, LP., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). See also Northeast Ohio Coalition for Homeless v. Brunner, 652 F.Supp.2d 871, 877 (S.D. Ohio 2009) ("Motions for reconsideration are not intended to re-litigate issues previously considered by the Court or to present evidence that could have been raised earlier.").

         III. Analysis

         In its Motion for Reconsideration, IPC argues that several portions of the Court's March 25, 2019, Decision and Entry are clearly erroneous and must be rectified to prevent manifest injustice. For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules IPC's motion in its entirety.

         A. Timeliness of Motion

         As Plaintiffs note, IPC waited almost five months after the Court's Decision and Entry was issued to move for reconsideration. Although there are no time limits for filing a motion for reconsideration, the fact that IPC waited so long to file the motion undermines its claims of clear error and manifest injustice.

         B. IPC's Motion for Summary Judgment

         IPC first argues that the Court erred in overruling its Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice to renewal after expert discovery is completed. It maintains that, given Plaintiffs' lack of evidence that hazardous substances were "disposed of" at the site during the time that IPC's predecessors owned and operated the paper mill, the Court should have simply sustained the motion. The Court rejects this argument.

         As it often does in CERCLA cases, the Court, in this case, directed two rounds of summary judgment motions -one for motions based solely on factual or legal issues that do not require any expert witness testimony, and the other for motions that do require expert witness testimony. The Court's March 25, ...


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.