Opinion

Jones v. Google LLC, Inc.

Court
District Court, D. Kansas
Filed
May 1, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.8%

The opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JOSEPH LEE JONES,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 20-3072-SAC

GOOGLE LLC, INC.,

Defendant.

O R D E R

This case was dismissed on April 14, 2020. Since that time

plaintiff has filed motions to alter or amend or filed pleadings

which were treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment.

See Doc. Nos. 48, 49, 52, 57. The court has denied these efforts.

The court has also: rejected an effort to amend the complaint

that was filed after this case was closed (Doc. No. 47); denied a

motion for sanctions (Doc. No. 58); denied a motion for default

judgment (Doc. No. 42); and denied a motion for temporary

restraining order (Doc. No. 42).

This case is now before the court upon four pleadings from

plaintiff. These are: a motion to reopen the case (Doc. No. 59);

a supplement in support of a temporary restraining order (Doc. No.

60); and what appear to be identical pleadings intended as a

supplement to or a renewed motion to reopen the case or for

sanctions and default judgment (Doc. Nos. 61 and 62).

The relief requested in these pleadings motions shall be

denied. It is well-established that a party may not ask for

reconsideration by rehashing arguments previously considered or

presenting new facts or theories which could have been raised

earlier. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th

Cir. 2000); Howard v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 2020 WL 1935026 *2

(D.Kan. 4/22/2020); Achey v. Linn County Bank, 174 F.R.D. 489, 490

(D.Kan. 1997); Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1482,

1483 (D.Kan. 1994). These pleadings seek reopening or

reconsideration of the dismissal of this case, or reconsideration

of the denial of motions. Plaintiff, however, repeats past

arguments or presents new material which could have been presented

previously. Plaintiff fails to show good cause for reconsideration

or for entering a judgment for damages or sanctions in a case which

has been dismissed in favor of defendant.

In conclusion, plaintiff shall be denied the relief requested

in Doc. Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 62.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 1st day of May 2020, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/Sam A. Crow_____________

U.S. District Senior Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.