U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck has been asked to reconsider his dismissal of a federal lawsuit arising from the Episcopal schism in eastern South Carolina.
Houck last month dismissed the action brought by Bishop Charles vonRosenberg and ruled that the legal issues should be settled in state court. The bishop represents parishes remaining with the national Episcopal Church following last year’s schism.
What are the chances that the judge will change his mind? This looks like a delaying tactic by TEC. It just wastes more time and money.
Concur. It is almost insulting to the judge who researhed the original opinion. This shows what they think their chances are in the state court system.
Not “almost insulting,” it [i]is[/i] insulting. One thing I learned from law practice (not that I ever committed this mistake, thank goodness) – never say, do, or write [i]anything[/i] a judge who currently has your matter before him would consider insulting or demeaning.
It is part of the appeal process. They don’t necessarily expect him to change his mind, and he will definitely not be insulted. The motion to reconsider and the brief that will accompany it, allows a litigant to set forth in an organized fashion, why he believes the court decision is wrong and assures all the litigants arguments are properly on the record that will go to the higher court on appeal. It happens in almost every ruling the court makes, where a party is considering an appeal.
Actually, where I have practiced law (Florida and New Hampshire), motions for reconsideration are rarely filed, even in cases in which an appeal is contemplated (I won’t speak for SC).
Lawyers are expected to make complete and effective arguments up front. The courts expect litigants to make the arguments in an organized faction in [b]advance[/b] of the initial decision, so that the court has the ability to understand the arguments made by each party, and rule accordingly. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and are generally limited to circumstances in which (1) there is new authority which was not available at the time of the original filings (e.g., a new appellate decision with binding or highly persuasive authority); or (2) it is apparent from the decision that the court misunderstood either the nature of the arguments or the authority upon which the decision arises. The second test requires more than just an assertion that the court made the wrong decision. Motions for reconsideration should not be made simply because one disagrees with the court’s ruling.
In SC you pretty much have to make a motion to reconsider to file an appeal. This case is in Federal Court where I seldom practice, but I think the requirements are similiar.
I believe the motion suspends the running of the appeal time in federal practice. They are buying time. I suspect they will pursue a useless appeal.
#7. It does automatically stay the time for appeal.