The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:21-cv-245-MOC
LAWRENCE E. GULLUM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ORDER
)
ENDEAVOR INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS, )
LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration and
Clarification, Breach of Contract, Order for Monetary Judgment and Financial Remedy and
Relief.” (Doc. No. 29). The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction,
Motion for Restraining Order, and Request for Hearing, (Doc. No. 22), by order dated April 25,
2022, (Doc. No. 26). The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion primarily because Plaintiff failed to even
attempt to satisfy the Winter test and because essentially all of the relief sought by Plaintiff can
be cured by money damages, meaning that Plaintiff cannot show the likelihood of irreparable
harm required for preliminary relief. (Id.). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider this decision,
and offers several “clarifications.”
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will construe his pleadings liberally.
Brown v. Charlotte Rentals LLC, No. 3:15-cv-0043-FDW-DCK, 2015 WL 4557368, at *2
(W.D.N.C. July 28, 2015) (citing Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978)). At the
same time, however, the Court will not “assume the role of advocate for the pro se plaintiff.”
Gordon, 574 F.2d at 1151 (quotation omitted).
As Defendants note, “[a] motion for reconsideration is not the proper place to relitigate a
case after the court has ruled against a party, as mere disagreement with a court’s rulings will not
support granting such a request.” Lynn v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 2d 612.
620 (D. Md. 2013). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of
Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). The losing party in a particular matter will almost
always be unhappy with the Court’s disposition of such matter, and rarely will a losing party
believe that its position lacked merit or that the Court correctly rejected its arguments. It would
be wasteful of judicial resources for the Court to have to consider every decision multiple times.
Therefore, parties should not seek reconsideration lightly, and the Court will not consider it
without good reason. “[W]here litigants have battled for the Court’s decision, they should not be
required, nor without good reason permitted, to battle for it again.” Official Comm. of the
Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Cooper & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 167 (2d Cir.
2003) (internal refs omitted). In the Fourth Circuit, “a court may revise an interlocutory order
under the same circumstances in which it may depart from the law of the case: (1) a subsequent
trial produc[ing] substantially different evidence; (2) a change in applicable law; or (3) clear error
causing manifest injustice.” Carlson v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 856 F.3d 320, 325 (4th Cir. 2017)
(internal refs omitted).
Plaintiff has failed to show any good reason why the Court should reconsider its original
decision. As Defendants point out, Plaintiff cannot satisfy any of the factors discussed by the
Fourth Circuit in Carlson.
Alternatively, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration again fails to show that the Winter
test is satisfied in this case. Plaintiff fails to effectively rebut the Court’s ruling that his alleged
injuries can largely be cured by money damages and, thus, that he cannot show “irreparable
harm.” Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration would be denied even if the Court
reached the merits.
However, the Court reiterates its previous finding that Plaintiff appears to be likely to
succeed on the merits. Based on the limited record before the Court, Defendants appear to have
breached their contract with Plaintiff and are likely liable to him for money damages. However,
the Court cannot grant relief to Plaintiff until the appropriate time in the legal process. Nor does
the Court find that Plaintiff is, in fact, entitled to relief—the Court only finds that, on a limited
record and without the benefit of discovery, further motions, and/or trial, Plaintiff appears to
have a valid claim that is likely to succeed on the merits.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, (Doc.
No. 29), is DENIED.
Signed: August 31, 2022
i )
Korine.
Max O. Cogburn i yg
United States District Judge Feat gg ta