Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01087/USCOURTS-arwd-1_05-cv-01087-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

KENNETH MODICA PLAINTIFF

VS. CASE NO. 05-CV-1087

PAPER ALLIED INDUSTRIAL, CHEMICAL

& ENERGY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL 

UNION AFL-CIO, an international labor 

organization and various JOHN DOES, agents,

employees, and/or officers of the Union DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, Kenneth

Modica. (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order and Judgment granting

Defendant United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial

and Service Workers International Union’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiff’s

Complaint. The Defendant has responded. (Doc. No. 27). The Plaintiff has filed a response to

Defendant’s reply. (Doc. No. 28). The matter is ripe for consideration. 

The Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff’s

service of process under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-28-214(b)(1) and 4-33-504(b) did not constitute

proper service upon the Defendant. The Plaintiff has filed this motion for reconsideration

claiming that service under Arkansas law (i.e. Ark. Code Ann. § 4-33-504) was correct. 

Under Rule 59(e), the Court may alter or amend its judgment only if it finds a manifest

error of law or fact in its ruling. See Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8

th

Cir. 1988)(quoting Rothwell Cotton Co. v. Rosenthal & Co., 827 F.2d 246, 252 (7 Cir.), as th

Case 1:05-cv-01087-HFB Document 31 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
amended, 835 F.2d 710 (7 Cir. 1987), quoting in turn Keene Corp. v. International Fidelity

th

Insurance Co., 561 F.Supp. 656, 665-66 (N.D. Ill. 1982), aff’d, 736 F.2d 388(7th Cir. 1984)).

After reviewing the Plaintiff’s motion, the Court does not believe that Plaintiff points to a

manifest error of law or fact that would justify amending or altering its prior ruling. Therefore,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider should be and hereby is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 20 day of August, 2007. th

 /s/Harry F. Barnes 

Hon. Harry F. Barnes

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01087-HFB Document 31 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>