DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
EDGAR BERRIOS, RAYMOND ALLYNE,
5
MALCOLM MACCOW, and VIRGINIE GEORGE, 5
5
Plaintiffs,
5
2005-CV-0192
v.
5
5
HOVIC; HOVENSA, LLC; JOHN PAULUS; DARYL 5
KRAMER, TODD REIDLINGER, JACOBS
5
INDUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY, LLC; 5
WYATT V.I., INC.; JACOBS CONSTRUCTORS,
5
INC.; JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, LLC; and
5
WYATT FIELD SERVICE COMPANY,
5
Defendants.
5
________________________________________________5
TO:
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Linda J. Blair, Esq.
Stephanie L. Adler, Esq.
Charles E. Engeman, Esq.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RECONSIDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Order of
August 7, 2008 (Docket No. 232).  Defendant HOVENSA, L.L.C., filed an opposition to said
motion, and Plaintiffs 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
Case: 1:05-cv-00192-JEJ-GWC   Document #: 235   Filed: 09/09/08   Page 1 of 2
Berrios v. HOVIC
2005-CV-0192
Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider
Page 2
injustice.”  LRCi 7.3.  Nowhere in Plaintiffs’ motion do Plaintiffs demonstrate that
reconsideration is warranted upon any of those enumerated grounds.  Plaintiffs refer to the
order at issue as “unrealistic and unworkable,” motion at 1, despite the fact that, as
Defendants note, the deadline in dispute was the one requested by counsel for Plaintiffs. 
The motion is otherwise silent regarding any change in law, new evidence, or error.  It
appears that Plaintiffs merely are dissatisfied with the order and counsel’s participation in
the status conference during which the deadline was discussed.  However, it is well
established that “[d]issatisfaction with the Court's ruling is not a proper basis for
reconsideration.”  Central Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Marello, No. Civ. A. 00-3344, 2001 WL 41129
at *2 (E.D. Pa. January 17, 2001) (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 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider
Order of August 7, 2008 (Docket No. 232) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: September 9, 2008
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00192-JEJ-GWC   Document #: 235   Filed: 09/09/08   Page 2 of 2