The court denied the defendants' motions for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order. In its order granting the preliminary injunction, the court had an extensive record before it, including deposition transcripts and video recordings of key events. The defendants did not request an evidentiary hearing before the ruling. The court found no intervening change in law, new evidence, or demonstration of clear error in its ruling to warrant reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order.
Original Description:
Federal District Court Judge denies motion to reconsider ruling against APS, Esquivel, Brooks et al
Original Title
MacQuigg [Doc 129] Order - Denying [117 & 118] Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration, 8-18-14-1
The court denied the defendants' motions for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order. In its order granting the preliminary injunction, the court had an extensive record before it, including deposition transcripts and video recordings of key events. The defendants did not request an evidentiary hearing before the ruling. The court found no intervening change in law, new evidence, or demonstration of clear error in its ruling to warrant reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order.
The court denied the defendants' motions for reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order. In its order granting the preliminary injunction, the court had an extensive record before it, including deposition transcripts and video recordings of key events. The defendants did not request an evidentiary hearing before the ruling. The court found no intervening change in law, new evidence, or demonstration of clear error in its ruling to warrant reconsideration of the preliminary injunction order.
The ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants. ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendants Motions for Reconsideration [Docs. 117, 118]. Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its Order Granting Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 114]. The Court entered its Order after the parties had conducted extensive discovery and after full briefing of the issues. Of significance in this case is that the Court had before it for consideration, prior to issuance of its Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, an extensive record. The materials before the Court included transcripts of deposition testimony and, most importantly, video recordings of key events. Defendants did not request an evidentiary hearing prior to the Courts ruling. The Court afforded the Defendants a full and fair opportunity to be heard in opposition to Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction. There being neither an intervening change in the law, new evidence previously unavailable, nor a demonstration of clear error in the Courts ruling, see Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,
Case 1:12-cv-01137-MCA-SCY Document 129 Filed 08/18/14 Page 1 of 2 1012 (10th Cir. 2000), Defendants Motions for Reconsideration [Docs. 117, 118] are denied. So ordered this 18 th day of August, 2014.
______________________________ M. CHRISTINA ARMIJ O Chief United States District J udge Case 1:12-cv-01137-MCA-SCY Document 129 Filed 08/18/14 Page 2 of 2