My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad



« The Dangers of Winging It in Depositions | Main | E-Discovery in the Post-Katrina Era »


Eh Nonymous

Unfortunately, a motion for en banc rehearing, like a motion for reconsideration, sends a strong signal that, in the opinion of the movant, the judges got something flat wrong. Not just arguably wrong, or subtly wrong, but glaringly wrong. As such, it makes an implicit statement - hard to avoid - that the judge should be ashamed of their decision. I conjecture that it is therefore _much_ less likely to be granted than a motion for reargument based on new allegedly controlling precedent.

Translation: I recently saw a motion for reconsideration get bounced by a circuit court, and expect that the motion for en banc rehearing will be similarly bounced.



I believe that each district makes its own list of "events" for electronic filing and they are not all the same - the list for the S.D. Ohio is not the same as for the W.D. Va. is not the same as for the E.D. Tenn. (the only three places I'm registered).

I suspect, however, they all provide for reconsideration motions.


Steve: That makes sense. My comment was based on the Southern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Missouri.

Richard Watkins

I am not a lawyer but my wife and I have been handling a case pro se. We filed a fifth amended counterclaim in state court (AR) to name the parties involved. Our adversaries immediately jumped on this and called the parties 'separate third party defendants' and filed in federal court and got our case thrown out without even a hearing. We planned to ask the fed judge for reconsideration. Our adversary is a municipality and fight is three years old.

Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour

Thanks for great blog....

Ralph Nicosia-Rusin

We filed a reconsideration pro se and requested the Court to asssent to a summary of facts from the hearing as part of the reconsideration. Our hope was to develop a record of facts for appeal but the Judge denied the motion and ignored our requrest tp a stipulation of facts. Is there a motion for requesting a ruling for stipulating facts?


Late in seeing your post but as one who's dealt with this: the federal courts actually treat these motions as a mis-labeled motion falling under one of their rules. Which makes sense because substance, not caption, controls.

So if it's after a trial, they review as a motion for new trial. If it's an attack on some other ruling they made, they treat it as a 59(e) motion. (If it's an untimely 59(e) motion, they review it under 60(b)).

I was interested by your citations. I'd note, in the context of your quoted cases regarding remand orders, the plaintiff lawyers out there could make a counter-argument: once a remand order is entered, no matter how wrong, if it's facially on a statutory ground then the federal courts lose jurisdiction to reconsider it (e.g., Thermtron). Just a thought though.

michael donegan

in recent denial for cfed. jurisdiction the ct stated that since fed law was not cited in state case it can not be cited now..however the fed. viol. was cited but state ct. denied motion to amend which included fed. viol. question was viol. cited in amended comp..thank you.. this is patient dumping case lost in st. ct. because indingent pro per could not bring expert test.

michael donegan

I am filing motion to reconsider based on your very helpful info thanks and good luck to me...will keep you posted

John Mayfield

Thanks alot of good stuff!


I filed aotion for recosideration after the Federal court
got the entire jurisdiction in the wrong state. Judge didn't even read the complaint and cited the wong state laws. Thru three it out.
I am appealing but it proved to me that the district courts are incompetent to rule.


I am dealing with a loss of income claim that has been in the courts since 2009 and although the ins. Co has basically through depositions completely undermined their own case, they recently did an amended answer so they could include fraud against me. They also filed for a summary judgement based on this. My lawyer did not timely file ANY answer to the court about either part, and at the hearing, the judge actually said that every case should be heard on its own merrits, or I would have a case against the court. He then suggested charging my side, basically for the additional expenses related to not timely filing. We then got back an order from the court GRANTING summary judgement, and taking the claim all the way back to 2005 when the policy was written, as though it had never existed, throwing the entire case out of court. Not only is this based on FRAUD that never existed, the Judge decided the fraud issue on a list of alleged "undisputed facts" which are almost entirely disputed. Several are just outright lies, and easily proven wrong. This has been almost two weeks ago, and my lawyer is going to ask for reconsideration but any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Dyrrle G. Osborne

Thank GOD for you, the courts want people to leave them alone. In my case they just ignored the facts and made a ruling without reading the information. I see Lack of subject matter because their is no Law that states one loss ownership of checking account when a government agency erroneous direct deposit into your account. Not only that when you give them the money back per their request you are a criminial. Thank GOD for you.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)



    How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

Search Trial Practice Tips