State Court Motion for Reconsideration (Civil) — District of Columbia

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CIVIL DIVISION

Case No. [________________________________]
Calendar/Judge: [____________]

[MOVING PARTY]'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S [DATE] ORDER

[MOVING PARTY] (the "Movant"), by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and the Court's inherent authority to revise its interlocutory rulings, to reconsider and revise its Order entered on [__/__/____] (the "Order"). In support, the Movant states as follows.

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Motion seeks reconsideration of an interlocutory order — that is, an order that "adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties" and that "does not end the action." Such an order "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

2. Because final judgment has not been entered, the Court retains plenary authority to revisit, modify, or vacate the Order. This Motion is therefore not a motion to alter or amend a final judgment under Rule 59(e), nor a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b).

3. Reconsideration is warranted here because [summarize in one sentence: an intervening change in controlling law / newly available evidence / clear error of law or fact that, if left uncorrected, will work a manifest injustice].

II. THE ORDER FOR WHICH RECONSIDERATION IS SOUGHT

4. On [__/__/____], the Court entered the Order, which [describe precisely what the Order did — e.g., "denied Movant's motion to compel," "granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Count II," "denied Movant's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim"].

5. The Order is interlocutory because [explain — e.g., "it resolves fewer than all claims and was not certified as a final judgment under Rule 54(b)," and the action remains pending as to [identify remaining claims/parties]].

6. No final judgment adjudicating all claims and all parties' rights and liabilities has been entered in this action. Accordingly, the Order remains "subject to revision" under Rule 54(b).

III. LEGAL STANDARD

7. Under Rule 54(b), any order or other decision that does not dispose of the entire action "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." A trial court possesses inherent authority to reconsider and revise its own interlocutory rulings while the case remains pending before it.

8. While the Court's discretion to revise an interlocutory order is broader than its authority over a final judgment, reconsideration is not a vehicle to relitigate matters already decided or to advance arguments that could have been raised earlier. Courts in this jurisdiction and applying the parallel federal Rule 54(b) generally grant reconsideration of an interlocutory order only where the movant demonstrates one or more of the following:

• (a) an intervening change in controlling law;
• (b) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or
• (c) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice.

9. The movant bears the burden of demonstrating that reconsideration is warranted.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. ☐ Intervening Change in Controlling Law

10. After the Court entered the Order, [identify the new authority — e.g., a decision of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, a United States Supreme Court decision, or a statutory amendment] changed the controlling law governing [issue].

11. Specifically, [describe the new authority and its holding]. See [citation — verify].

12. Under this intervening authority, the legal premise on which the Order rests is no longer correct because [explain]. The Court should therefore revise the Order to [requested revision].

B. ☐ New Evidence Not Previously Available

13. Since entry of the Order, the Movant has obtained the following evidence that was not available and could not, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been presented when the Court ruled: [describe the new evidence].

14. This evidence is material because [explain how it would change the analysis or outcome]. It is attached as Exhibit [__] and supported by the [Declaration/Affidavit of [Name]] filed herewith.

15. Because the Movant could not have presented this evidence earlier despite reasonable diligence, reconsideration is appropriate.

C. ☐ Clear Error / Manifest Injustice

16. The Order rests on a clear error of [law / fact]. Specifically, [identify the precise error — e.g., the Court applied the wrong legal standard; the Court overlooked controlling authority that was briefed; the Order is premised on a factual finding contradicted by the record].

17. [Explain why the error is "clear" — not merely a disagreement — and cite the overlooked authority or record evidence. E.g., "The Order overlooked [authority/record citation], which was raised at [page] of Movant's [brief] and directly controls the question of [issue]."]

18. Leaving this error uncorrected would work a manifest injustice because [explain the concrete prejudice — e.g., it would deprive Movant of a meritorious [claim/defense], require unnecessary trial of an issue resolvable as a matter of law, or otherwise prejudice Movant's substantial rights].

V. RELIEF REQUESTED

19. WHEREFORE, the Movant respectfully requests that the Court:

a. GRANT this Motion for Reconsideration;
b. VACATE or REVISE the Order entered on [__/__/____] as follows: [state precisely the revised ruling sought];
c. [If applicable] set a further hearing or permit supplemental briefing on [issue]; and
d. grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VI. TIMING NOTE AND CROSS-REFERENCE

20. Timing. Because the Order is interlocutory and no final judgment has been entered, no fixed deadline under Rule 59 or Rule 60 applies; the Court "may revise" the Order "at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Movant nonetheless brings this Motion promptly and [state when the basis for reconsideration arose — e.g., "within [__] days of the decision in [case]"] to avoid prejudice and undue delay.

21. Cross-reference (final judgments). This Motion does NOT seek to alter, amend, or obtain relief from a final judgment. If the order in question were a final judgment, the appropriate vehicle would be:
    - a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment or Motion for a New Trial under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59 (which must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment); or
    - a Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
    See the separate templates for those motions. A timely Rule 59 motion tolls the time to note an appeal; a motion to reconsider an interlocutory order does not implicate the appeal clock because no appealable final judgment has been entered.

22. Proposed order. A proposed order granting the relief requested is submitted herewith pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12-I.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]
D.C. Bar No. [____________]
[LAW FIRM NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE, ZIP]
Telephone: [____________]
Email: [____________]
Counsel for [MOVING PARTY]

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration, the supporting [Declaration(s)/Exhibits], and the [Proposed] Order was served upon all counsel of record (and any self-represented parties) via [the Court's eFiling system (CaseFileXpress) / first-class U.S. mail / email by consent], pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 5, addressed as follows:

[NAME OF OPPOSING COUNSEL / PARTY]
[ADDRESS]
[EMAIL]

__________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME]

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Upon consideration of [Moving Party]'s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's [__/__/____] Order, any opposition and reply thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this ____ day of ____________, 20__, hereby

ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the Court's Order entered [__/__/____] is [VACATED / REVISED] as follows: [insert revised ruling].

__________________________________
Judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia

SOURCES & REFERENCES

• D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(b) — Judgment on multiple claims or involving multiple parties; an order that adjudicates fewer than all claims or parties' rights "may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities." (Patterned on Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).)
• D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 59(e) — Motion to alter or amend a judgment; must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment (applies to FINAL judgments).
• D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b) — Relief from a final judgment or order.
• D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 5 — Service and filing of pleadings and other papers.
• D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12-I — Motions; requirement of a proposed order and (where applicable) statement regarding consent.
• Reconsideration standard (intervening change in controlling law / new evidence / clear error or manifest injustice): D.C. courts construe Rule 54(b) and Rule 59(e) consistently with the identically worded federal rules.