Amelio v. Houri

Background

Plaintiffs sought reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) of an October 24, 2024 order. That earlier order had denied their request for a second two-week extension to move for reconsideration of the September 13, 2024 dismissal of their claims against The Legal Aid Society.

Reasons for Denial

The court identified several independent reasons to deny the motion. First, it said Rule 59(e) applies to judgments, not orders. The court further explained that the District’s Local Rule 6.3 requires a reconsideration motion to be served within 14 days after the challenged order. Plaintiffs filed this motion on November 21, 2024—28 days after the October 24 order—so the court found it untimely.

Second, the court said reconsideration would not be justified even if it considered the motion’s merits. Plaintiffs had received an extension until October 14, 2024, to seek reconsideration of the September 13 dismissal order. The court said plaintiffs did not file that reconsideration motion by the applicable deadline. Instead, they requested another extension on the deadline day, contrary to the individual rules for Judge Ho and Judge Lehrburger, which generally required extension requests at least two days or 48 hours before the deadline.

Third, the court said the motion addressed only one of the four reasons previously given for denying the request for a second extension. The court found that the remaining reasons independently supported denial. Although plaintiffs again referred to one plaintiff’s health issues, the court found that they presented nothing new that it had not already considered. The court also cited the standard that reconsideration is generally appropriate only for an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Disposition

The court DENIED plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Dkt. 124. This order concerned the request to revisit the prior extension ruling; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

Procedural Classification

This is a procedural order because the court denied reconsideration based on filing deadlines, compliance with extension procedures, and the absence of new grounds for reconsideration. The opinion contains inconsistent dates: the supplied case information lists April 16, 2025, while the order is dated April 16, 2024, and the text refers to an October 15, 2025 filing in a chronology otherwise describing 2024 events.