Although there is no federal rule expressly allowing motions to reconsider, parties file them anyway. Some evidence is that the PACER electronic filing system allows you to categorize a motion as one "for reconsideration."
A body of case law describes when motions to reconsider are appropriate. Following is a section from a brief (not mine) that quotes from a number of Illinois cases on the issue:
A motion to reconsider is available to correct manifest errors of law and fact, or to present newly discovered evidence. Wolves v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 1990 WL 84519, at *1 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (not reported in F. Supp.) (citing Publisher's Resource Inc. v. Walker-David Publications, Inc., 726 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985)). A motion to reconsider should be used neither to introduce new evidence that was available during original consideration, nor to introduce new legal theories. Calderon v. Reno, 56 F.Supp.2d 997, 998 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (citing Publisher's Resource, 762 F.2d at 561)).
A motion to reconsider a remand order is proper "where the court has patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, which made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension." Calderon, 56 F.Supp. 2d at 999 (citing Bank of Waunake v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). "A further basis for a motion to reconsider would be a controlling or significant change in the law or facts since the submission of the issue to the Court." State Bank of India v. Commercial Steel Corp., 2001 WL 423001, at *2 (N.D.Ill. 2001) (not reported in F.Supp.2d). "Such problems rarely arise and the motion to reconsider should be equally rare." State Bank of India v. Commercial Steel Corp., 2001 WL 423001, at *2 (N.D.Ill. 2001) (not reported in F.Supp.2d) (citing Rounds v. City of Chicago, No. 94 C. 1708, 1996 WL 99408, at *1 (N.D. Ill. March 5, 1996) (citations omitted), aff'd, 95 F.3d 1154 (7th Cir. 1996)).
That's a pretty good description of the circumstances under which a motion to reconsider might be appropriate, and I wanted to bookmark it here for future use.
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.
Posted by: Eh Nonymous | September 19, 2005 at 11:44 AM
Evan
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.
Posted by: Steve | September 19, 2005 at 05:40 PM
Steve: That makes sense. My comment was based on the Southern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Missouri.
Posted by: Evan | September 19, 2005 at 07:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Richard Watkins | October 29, 2009 at 06:50 AM
Thanks for great blog....
Posted by: Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour | December 04, 2009 at 05:10 AM
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?
Posted by: Ralph Nicosia-Rusin | June 26, 2010 at 03:16 AM
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.
Posted by: Bob | August 04, 2010 at 10:32 PM
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.
Posted by: michael donegan | July 25, 2011 at 03:24 PM
I am filing motion to reconsider based on your very helpful info thanks and good luck to me...will keep you posted
Posted by: michael donegan | July 26, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Thanks alot of good stuff!
Posted by: John Mayfield | October 25, 2011 at 10:24 AM
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.
Posted by: Shari | December 10, 2011 at 06:26 PM
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.
Keith
Posted by: Keith | April 04, 2012 at 12:42 PM
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.
Posted by: Dyrrle G. Osborne | December 23, 2012 at 08:47 PM