Show pageBack to top This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong. ====== Motion for Reconsideration: Your Ultimate Guide to a Second Look from the Court ====== **LEGAL DISCLAIMER:** This article provides general, informational content for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional legal advice from a qualified attorney. Always consult with a lawyer for guidance on your specific legal situation. ===== What is a Motion for Reconsideration? A 30-Second Summary ===== Imagine you're the coach of a football team. A referee makes a game-changing call against you. You know you can't just argue that you "didn't like the call." That will get you nowhere. But what if you have instant replay footage, unavailable to the ref just a moment ago, that clearly shows the player was in-bounds? Or what if the league issued a brand-new rule interpretation that morning which the referee clearly missed? In that moment, you're not just complaining; you're asking the referee to look at new, crucial information or to correct a clear misapplication of the rules. A **motion for reconsideration** is the legal world's version of that instant replay challenge. It's a formal request asking the same judge who made a decision to take a second look. It is not a do-over or a chance to re-argue your case with the same old plays. Instead, it's a highly specific and powerful tool used only when you believe the court made its decision based on a factual or legal error, or when new, critical information has come to light. It’s your way of respectfully telling the court, "Your Honor, with all due respect, I believe there's a crucial piece of the puzzle you need to see before this decision becomes final." * **Key Takeaways At-a-Glance:** * **It's a "Second Look," Not a "Do-Over":** A **motion for reconsideration** asks the original judge to correct specific errors or consider new facts, not to simply rehear arguments that already failed. [[motion_(legal)]]. * **Grounds are Extremely Limited:** You can't file this motion just because you are unhappy with the outcome; you must typically prove there's been a change in law, new evidence has emerged, or the court made a clear error. [[evidence_(law)]]. * **Timing is Everything:** These motions have incredibly short and strict deadlines—often just a few weeks after the court's order—making immediate action and consultation with a [[lawyer]] absolutely critical. [[statute_of_limitations]]. ===== Part 1: The Legal Foundations of a Motion for Reconsideration ===== ==== The Story of Reconsideration: A Quest for Fairness and Finality ==== The concept of asking a judge to reconsider a ruling isn't found in ancient texts like the `[[magna_carta]]`. Instead, its roots are deeply embedded in the American `[[common_law]]` tradition and the practical need to balance two competing principles: **finality** and **fairness**. Courts need their decisions to be final. Without finality, a case could go on forever, with the losing party endlessly asking the judge to "think about it one more time." This would create chaos and undermine the authority of the judicial system. This principle is known as `[[res_judicata]]`, a legal doctrine that prevents the same case from being litigated over and over again. However, the system also recognizes that judges are human and can make mistakes. Sometimes, a critical piece of evidence is genuinely undiscoverable until after a ruling. Sometimes, a higher court changes the entire legal landscape overnight. To rigidly enforce finality in these situations would be to knowingly allow an injustice to stand. The **motion for reconsideration** evolved as the solution to this dilemma. It acts as a limited, but essential, safety valve. Its modern form was largely shaped and standardized with the creation of the `[[federal_rules_of_civil_procedure]]` (FRCP) in 1938. These rules, particularly Rules 59 and 60, created a formal, predictable process for parties to ask for relief from a court's judgment under very specific circumstances, striking a delicate balance between ending a case and ensuring the right result was reached. ==== The Law on the Books: The Rules of the Game ==== In the federal system, there isn't one single rule titled "Motion for Reconsideration." Instead, the concept is primarily governed by two key parts of the `[[federal_rules_of_civil_procedure]]`. States often have similar, but distinct, rules. * **[[frcp_rule_59e]] (Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment):** This is the most common tool for what is colloquially known as a motion for reconsideration of a **final judgment**. * **The Rule States:** "A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." * **Plain English Translation:** This is your main tool for a quick-turnaround challenge to the court's final decision. The 28-day deadline is absolute and unforgiving. If you miss it, you lose your chance. This rule is typically used to correct what are called "manifest errors" of law or fact—mistakes that are obvious and undeniable. * **[[frcp_rule_60b]] (Relief from a Judgment or Order):** This rule is for more extraordinary circumstances and offers a longer, but more difficult, path to relief. * **The Rule States:** "On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial...; (3) fraud..., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party..." and other specific reasons. * **Plain English Translation:** This is the "last resort" option. It's used when something more serious than a simple legal error has occurred, like fraud being uncovered or truly game-changing evidence appearing months later. The timeline can be longer (up to a year for reasons 1-3), but the burden of proof is exceptionally high. ==== A Nation of Contrasts: Jurisdictional Differences ==== While federal rules provide a blueprint, state laws can differ significantly. What works in a federal court in New York might not work the same way in a state court in California. Understanding your local court's specific rules is non-negotiable. ^ **Feature** ^ **Federal Courts (FRCP)** ^ **California** ^ **Texas** ^ **New York** ^ **Florida** ^ | **Primary Rule(s)** | FRCP 59(e), 60(b) | `[[california_code_of_civil_procedure]]` § 1008 | `[[texas_rules_of_civil_procedure]]` 329b | `[[new_york_civil_practice_law_and_rules]]` 2221 | `[[florida_rules_of_civil_procedure]]` 1.530 | | **Standard Deadline (Final Judgment)** | **28 days** after judgment | **10 days** after service of notice of entry of the order | **30 days** after judgment is signed (Court retains plenary power) | **30 days** after service of notice of entry of the order | **15 days** after judgment (for rehearing) | | **Key Grounds** | Change in law, new evidence, clear error. | Requires **"new or different facts, circumstances, or law"** and an affidavit explaining why it wasn't presented earlier. | Broad discretion for the trial court within the 30-day window. | Must show that the court **overlooked or misapprehended** relevant facts or law. Cannot include new facts. | Must be based on matters the court overlooked or misapprehended. | | **What this means for you:** | You have a relatively standard but strict window. The grounds are well-defined by case law. | California is extremely strict. You must justify, in a sworn statement, why you couldn't have raised this issue before. | Texas gives trial courts a unique period of broad control to fix errors before a judgment becomes final and appealable. | New York explicitly forbids you from using a motion for reconsideration to introduce facts that were available but not presented the first time. It's strictly about what the judge missed. | The window in Florida is exceptionally short. You must act almost immediately after a decision is rendered. | ===== Part 2: Deconstructing the Core Elements ===== ==== The Anatomy of a Motion for Reconsideration: The Three Golden Grounds ==== Winning a motion for reconsideration is difficult because judges are naturally reluctant to reverse their own decisions. You cannot simply express disagreement. You must present a compelling, legally recognized reason for the judge to take a second look. There are generally only three accepted grounds. === Ground 1: An Intervening Change in Controlling Law === This is perhaps the most straightforward ground. It occurs when a higher authority (like the U.S. Supreme Court or the state's supreme court) issues a decision that changes the legal rules of the game **after** the judge made their initial ruling but **before** the case is final. * **What It Is:** The very legal foundation upon which the judge's decision was built has been altered or removed. The judge's original ruling may have been perfectly correct on Tuesday, but by Friday, a new appellate decision has made it incorrect. * **What It Is Not:** Discovering an old case you simply missed the first time around. The change must be new and "intervening." * **Relatable Example:** Imagine you are fighting a city ordinance about home businesses. The judge rules against you, citing a 20-year-old state supreme court case as the binding `[[precedent]]`. The day after the judge's ruling, the state supreme court issues a new ruling in a different case that explicitly overturns that 20-year-old precedent, stating it is no longer good law. You would immediately file a **motion for reconsideration** on this ground, arguing that the legal authority the judge relied upon no longer exists. === Ground 2: The Availability of New Evidence === This ground is often claimed but very difficult to prove. It involves evidence that was truly unavailable to you during the initial proceedings. * **What It Is:** You have discovered new, crucial evidence that likely would have changed the outcome of the original ruling, and you must prove that you could not have found this evidence earlier, even with `[[due_diligence]]` (a reasonable amount of effort). * **What It Is Not:** Evidence you forgot to submit, a witness you chose not to call, or facts you failed to investigate properly the first time. The court will not reward a party for their own lack of preparation. * **Relatable Example:** You are in a `[[personal_injury]]` lawsuit stemming from a car accident. The other driver claims you were speeding. The only witness was a tourist who left the country immediately after the accident and was completely unreachable. The judge rules against you. Two weeks later, the witness returns to the U.S. and contacts you, providing a sworn `[[affidavit]]` stating they clearly saw the other driver run the red light. This is genuinely new evidence that was previously unavailable, and it would be a strong basis for a **motion for reconsideration**. === Ground 3: The Need to Correct a Clear Error or Prevent Manifest Injustice === This is the most common, but also the most subjective, ground. "Clear error" means a mistake that is not a matter of debate but is plainly and obviously wrong. "Manifest injustice" refers to a result that is profoundly unfair and shocking to the conscience. * **What It Is:** The judge overlooked a key fact presented in the record (e.g., ignored a signed contract attached as Exhibit A) or misapplied a well-established legal standard. It’s for errors that are "obvious on their face." * **What It Is Not:** A chance to re-hash your old arguments and try to persuade the judge you were right all along. If the judge understood your argument and simply disagreed with it, that is not a clear error; that is a basis for an `[[appeal]]`. * **Relatable Example:** In a `[[breach_of_contract]]` case, the contract clearly states a deadline of "30 business days." You submitted evidence showing you performed your obligation in 28 business days. The judge, in their written order, mistakenly reads the contract as "30 calendar days" and rules against you for being late. This is a **clear factual error**—a direct misreading of the evidence in the record. Filing a **motion for reconsideration** to point out this specific oversight would be appropriate and necessary to prevent a manifest injustice. ==== The Players on the Field: Who's Who in the Reconsideration Process ==== * **The Judge:** The judge is the decision-maker, both for the original ruling and the motion to reconsider it. Their role here is to act as a gatekeeper. They are looking for one of the three valid grounds, not for a re-argument. They are focused on judicial efficiency and will not grant a motion that simply rehashes old points. * **The Moving Party (The "Movant"):** This is you or your lawyer—the party who lost the original ruling and is filing the motion. Your job is to draft a concise, powerful, and highly focused legal document that clearly demonstrates why the court should take the extraordinary step of reconsidering its own decision. * **The Opposing Party (The "Non-Movant"):** This is the party who won the original ruling. Their lawyer's job is to file a response (an "opposition") to your motion. They will argue that you have not met the high standard for reconsideration and are simply trying to get an improper "second bite at the apple." ===== Part 3: Your Practical Playbook ===== ==== Step-by-Step: What to Do When You Get a Bad Ruling ==== Receiving an unfavorable court order can be devastating, but it's crucial to act methodically and quickly. Time is not on your side. === Step 1: Analyze the Court's Order Immediately === Do not delay. As soon as you receive the judge's written order or judgment, you and your attorney must review it carefully. The clock on your deadline (which could be as short as 10-15 days) starts ticking immediately. Read the judge's reasoning. Did they misunderstand a key fact? Did they fail to address a critical legal argument you made? === Step 2: Identify Valid Grounds for Reconsideration === This is the most critical step. Compare the judge's reasoning against the three golden grounds. - **Ask yourself:** "Did a new Supreme Court case just come out? Did a key witness just land at the airport from overseas? Did the judge's order say the contract was blue when it's clearly green in the evidence?" - **Do NOT ask:** "Does the judge not like my argument? Can I explain my point better this time?" If your answer is closer to the second set of questions, your remedy is likely an `[[appeal]]` to a higher court, not a **motion for reconsideration**. === Step 3: Check the Deadline - It's Critical! === This cannot be overstated. You must immediately determine the deadline to file under your jurisdiction's rules of `[[civil_procedure]]`. In federal court, it's 28 days for an FRCP 59(e) motion. In some state courts, it's much shorter. This deadline is almost always "jurisdictional," meaning if you miss it by even one day, the court loses the power to hear your motion. === Step 4: Gather Your Evidence and Supporting Law === If you are arguing new evidence, you must prepare a sworn statement (an `[[affidavit]]` or `[[declaration_(law)]]`) from the witness or a document authenticating the evidence. If you are arguing a change in law or clear error, you must have the legal citations for the new case or the existing precedent the judge overlooked. === Step 5: Draft the Motion and Memorandum of Law === Your lawyer will draft two key documents. The first is the **motion** itself, a short document that formally asks the court to reconsider its order. The second, and more important, is the **memorandum of law** (sometimes called a "brief in support"). This document lays out your argument in detail, citing case law and evidence, and explaining precisely how one of the valid grounds for reconsideration has been met. === Step 6: File with the Court and Serve the Opposing Party === The motion must be officially filed with the court clerk before the deadline. In modern practice, this is usually done through an electronic filing system. At the same time, you must formally deliver a copy of the motion to the opposing party's attorney, a process known as `[[service_of_process]]`. === Step 7: Prepare for the Opposing Party's Response and a Potential Hearing === The other side will have a chance to file a written response arguing against your motion. After reviewing both sides' papers, the judge will either make a decision based on the written submissions alone or schedule a court hearing to hear oral arguments from the lawyers. ==== Essential Paperwork: Key Forms and Documents ==== While a "fill-in-the-blank" form is rare for such a complex motion, the filing will always consist of these core components: * **[[motion_(legal)]]:** This is the official cover document. It is typically a one- or two-page document that formally states what you are asking the court to do. For example: "Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Summary Judgment." * **[[memorandum_of_law]]:** This is the heart of your request. It is a persuasive legal argument, structured like a short essay. It must have an introduction, a statement of the facts, the legal standard for reconsideration, your detailed argument applying the facts and law, and a conclusion stating the specific relief you want (e.g., for the court to vacate its previous order). * **[[affidavit]] or [[declaration_(law)]]:** If your motion is based on new facts or evidence, you must submit a sworn statement. This document, signed under penalty of `[[perjury]]`, is where a witness lays out the new facts. For example, the affidavit from the previously unavailable witness who saw the car accident. This provides the factual basis for the arguments made in the memorandum. ===== Part 4: Cases That Set the Rules of the Game ===== Landmark cases for procedural motions aren't as famous as those involving constitutional rights, but they are critically important because they define the rules lawyers and judges must follow every day. ==== Case Study: *Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc.*, 70 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 1995) ==== * **The Backstory:** This was not a headline-grabbing case, but an employment dispute. The lower court made a decision, and the losing party filed for reconsideration. * **The Legal Question:** The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (a very influential federal court) took the opportunity to clearly and concisely state the standard for a motion for reconsideration in its jurisdiction. * **The Court's Holding:** The court stated: "The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked...". It then formally laid out the three classic grounds: **(1) an intervening change of controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.** * **How It Impacts You Today:** This case is cited thousands of times by lawyers and judges in federal courts, especially in New York. It created a clear, three-part test that is now the universally accepted standard. When you file a **motion for reconsideration** in federal court, your lawyer will almost certainly cite a case like *Shrader* to show the judge the legal standard they are required to apply. ==== Case Study: *School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc.*, 5 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1993) ==== * **The Backstory:** A complex case involving asbestos liability. After a judgment, a party filed for reconsideration. * **The Legal Question:** The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and other western states, needed to clarify *what a motion for reconsideration is not*. * **The Court's Holding:** The court made a powerful statement, emphasizing that reconsideration is not a second chance. It held that a motion is inappropriate if it simply repeats old arguments or raises new arguments that could have been made before the judgment. The court stated, "reconsideration is an 'extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'" * **How It Impacts You Today:** This ruling is the shield the winning party uses against a motion for reconsideration. It gives the judge a clear legal basis to deny motions that are just attempts to re-litigate the case. It reminds everyone that this tool is reserved for genuinely extraordinary circumstances, not for sour grapes. ===== Part 5: The Future of the Motion for Reconsideration ===== ==== Today's Battlegrounds: Frivolous Motions and Sanctions ==== A recurring debate in the legal community is the perceived overuse of motions for reconsideration. Some attorneys are accused of filing them routinely after any loss, not because there are valid grounds, but as a tactic to delay the finality of the judgment or to show their client they are "still fighting." This clogs court dockets and forces the winning party to spend more money on legal fees. In response, judges are increasingly willing to impose `[[sanctions_(law)]]` on lawyers and parties who file a `[[frivolous_litigation|frivolous]]` **motion for reconsideration** that has no good-faith basis in law or fact. ==== On the Horizon: How Technology and Society are Changing the Law ==== The digital age is impacting this area of law in subtle but significant ways. * **E-Filing and Speed:** The universal adoption of electronic court filing (ECF) systems means that orders are delivered instantly, and the short deadlines for reconsideration begin immediately. There is no longer a "mailbox rule" delay. This puts even more pressure on legal teams to analyze orders and act within hours, not days. * **The Information Explosion:** With vast online legal databases, it is easier than ever for a new "intervening" court decision to be published and discovered within hours of being issued. This could potentially increase the frequency of motions based on an "intervening change in controlling law," as the lag time between a higher court's decision and the lower court's awareness of it has shrunk to virtually zero. ===== Glossary of Related Terms ===== * **[[affidavit]]:** A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. * **[[appeal]]:** A request made to a higher court to review and reverse the decision of a lower court. * **[[civil_procedure]]:** The body of rules that governs the process of a civil lawsuit in courts. * **[[common_law]]:** Law derived from judicial decisions and custom rather than from statutes. * **[[declaration_(law)]]:** A written statement submitted to a court in which the author swears under penalty of perjury that the contents are true. * **[[due_diligence]]:** Reasonable steps taken by a person in order to satisfy a legal requirement, especially in buying or selling something. * **[[evidence_(law)]]:** Information presented in court to prove or disprove a point in question. * **[[federal_rules_of_civil_procedure]]:** The set of rules governing civil procedure in United States federal courts. * **[[final_judgment]]:** The final decision of a court in a lawsuit that resolves all issues and is appealable. * **[[interlocutory_order]]:** A court order that is not final and is made during the course of litigation. * **[[memorandum_of_law]]:** A document, also known as a brief, that presents legal arguments and authorities to a court. * **[[motion_(legal)]]:** A formal written request made to a judge for an order or judgment. * **[[precedent]]:** A prior court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts. * **[[res_judicata]]:** A legal doctrine meaning "a matter judged," which prevents a cause of action from being relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. * **[[statute_of_limitations]]:** A law that sets the maximum amount of time that parties involved in a dispute have to initiate legal proceedings. ===== See Also ===== * [[appeal]] * [[motion_to_dismiss]] * [[motion_for_summary_judgment]] * [[civil_procedure]] * [[federal_rules_of_civil_procedure]] * [[final_judgment]] * [[evidence_(law)]]