DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
JUAN MENDEZ, RENE VARGAS, FRANK
5
ORTIZ, REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, and
5
JAIME GARCIA,
5
2002-CV-0169
5
Plaintiffs,
5
v.
5
5
HOVENSA, L.L.C.,
5
5
Defendant.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Onik’a Gilliam, Esq.
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court for consideration upon Defendant HOVENSA,
L.L.C.’s Motion to Reconsider the Oral Order Allegedly Made During March 31, 2008[,]
Settlement Conference (Docket No. 470); Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Order Entered April 02, 2008 (Docket No. 474); and, Plaintiffs’ Motion
For Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) [sic] to File Sworn Testimony in Further Support of
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion For Reconsideration of Judge Savage’s Oral Order (Docket
No. 502).
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 515   Filed: 06/03/08   Page 1 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order
Page 2
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of
an order issued by a judge or magistrate judge of this Court based upon “1. intervening
change in controlling law; 2. availability of new evidence, or; 3. the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.”  LRCi 7.3 (formerly, LRCi 7.4).  It is widely recognized
that the ”’purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or
to present newly discovered evidence.’”  Snith v. City of Chester, 155 F.R.D. 95, 96 (E.D. Pa. 1994)
(citation omitted).  Such a motion “[i]s not a vehicle for registering disagreement with the
court's 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 Virgin
Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004).
Having reviewed the motions for reconsideration and upon due consideration
thereof, the Court finds that Defendant has not presented any new evidence nor has
Defendant persuaded the Court that its previous orders require modification or reversal.
WHEREFORE, it is now  hereby ORDERED:
1.
Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion to Reconsider the Oral Order
Allegedly Made During March 31, 2008[,] Settlement Conference (Docket No.
470) is DENIED.
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 515   Filed: 06/03/08   Page 2 of 3
Mendez v. HOVENSA, L.L.C
2002-CV-0169
Order
Page 3
2.
Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C.’s Motion For Reconsideration of Order
Entered April 02, 2008 (Docket No. 474) is DENIED.
3.
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave Pursuant to Rule 6(d) [sic] to File Sworn
Testimony in Further Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion For
Reconsideration of Judge Savage’s Oral Order (Docket No. 502) is
GRANTED.
ENTER:
Dated: June 3, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:02-cv-00169-TJS   Document #: 515   Filed: 06/03/08   Page 3 of 3