DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
DESERIE M. CROSSLEY,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2007-CV-0017
v.
5
5
DAVID C. ELLIOT, KEVIN RAMES,
5
ROBERT SIEBENGARTNER, and 
 
5
ISLAND LYNX FERRY COMPANY, 
5
LLC,
5
5
Defendants.
5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Anna M. Washburn, Esq.
Kevin A. Rames, Esq. 
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
of Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadlines Nunc Pro Tunc
(Docket No. 63).  Defendant filed an opposition to said motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply
thereto.
Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.3, parties may seek reconsideration of
an order issued of the 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.  It is widely recognized that the ”’purpose of a motion for
Case: 1:07-cv-00017-RLF-GWC   Document #: 66   Filed: 09/08/08   Page 1 of 4
Crossley v. Elliot
2007-CV-0017
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 2
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). 
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, nothing therein persuades the Court that
its previous order requires modification or reversal.
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to
Extend the Discovery Deadlines Nunc Pro Tunc (Docket No. 62), stating that Plaintiff’s
failure to complete discovery or request an extension of the discovery deadline within the
time allowed should be deemed excusable neglect.
In support of her contention, Plaintiff cites Dominic v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp.,
841, F.2d 513 (3d Cir. 1988).  The Dominic court, in turn, cites Consolidated Freightways Corp.
of Delaware v. Larson, 827 F.2d 916 (3d Cir. 1987), where the court
enumerated factors which are relevant to the evaluation of whether
excusable neglect has occurred.  Those factors included: 1) whether the
inadvertence reflected professional incompetence such as ignorance of rules
of procedure, 2) whether an asserted inadvertence reflects an easily
manufactured excuse incapable of verification by the court, 3) counsel's
failure to provide for a readily foreseeable consequence, 4) a complete lack
of diligence or 5) whether the inadvertence resulted despite counsel's
substantial good faith efforts towards compliance.  Consolidated Freightways,
827 F.2d 916, 919.
Dominic, 841 F.2d at 517.
Case: 1:07-cv-00017-RLF-GWC   Document #: 66   Filed: 09/08/08   Page 2 of 4
Crossley v. Elliot
2007-CV-0017
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 3
Applying the Consolidated Freightways factors to the facts as alleged by Plaintiff, the
Court finds that Plaintiff’s primary excuse of this case “falling through the cracks” does not
constitute excusable neglect in this instance.  The Court finds that factors numbered two (2)
through five (5) weigh against Plaintiff’s claim of excusable neglect.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact.  Further, Plaintiff has
introduced no new evidence in support of reconsideration.  Therefore, reconsideration is
not warranted on either of those bases.
Plaintiff appears merely to disagree with the Court’s ruling.  However, “clear error
or manifest injustice does not exist when a litigant merely disagrees with the court.”  Bostic
v. AT & T of the Virgin Islands, 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (D.V.I. 2004) (citation omitted).  See
also Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Marello, No. Civ. A. 00-3344, 2001 WL 41129 at *2 (E.D. Pa.
January 17, 2001) (where the court states, “Dissatisfaction with the Court's ruling is not a
proper basis for reconsideration” (citing Burger King Corp. v. New England Hood and Duct
Cleaning Co., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1022 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 4, 2000)).
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion For
Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadlines
Nunc Pro Tunc (Docket No. 63) is DENIED.
Case: 1:07-cv-00017-RLF-GWC   Document #: 66   Filed: 09/08/08   Page 3 of 4
Crossley v. Elliot
2007-CV-0017
Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
Page 4
ENTER:
Dated: September 8, 2008
                                /s/                                    
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:07-cv-00017-RLF-GWC   Document #: 66   Filed: 09/08/08   Page 4 of 4