either newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of aw or fact... A
“manifest error” is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is
the “wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling
precedent.” . . . Contrary to this standard, [the County’s] motion{] merely t[akes]
umbrage with the [C]ourt’s ruling and rehash[es] old arguments.”
Oto v. Metro. Life. Ins. Co., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Sedrak v. Callahan, 987 F.
Supp. 1063, 1069 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The County’s motion to reconsider does not demonstrate that this
Court disregarded, misapplied, or failed to recognize controlling precedent and, therefore, is denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s, County of Cook’s, Motion to Alter or Amend

Judgment is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: _-} trey 23 20 Wo art _
fn W. Dara, Judge

ew ites District Court



Minute Order Form (06/97)
SS

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Name of Assigned Judge John W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 01 C 564 DATE 1/23/2003
CASE CAPITAL CITY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. vs. COUNTY OF COOK
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (6) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

q) q Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

@) 0 Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__.

(4) 0 Ruling/Hearingon___ssetfor_ at

(5) im Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor_— at

(6) im} Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor at.
(7) a Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_—at

(8) oO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to__at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) CLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

do) =o [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 2/6/03 at 9:00 a.m. Enter Memorandum
Opinion And Order. Defendant, County of Cook’s motion to alter or amend judgment is denied.
dl) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.}
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. umber of nottoce
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. JAN 2 7 cUuS
Notified counsel by telephone. date docked
W | Docketing to mail notices, ;
Mail AO 450 form. waco. (b |
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. |
courtroom 2035 Hd He Bur eu date mailed notice
LG deputy's oor ci seospe
intals Dateline feoeiverin”
central Clerk’s Office rating deputy intals



5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS lav 2 72003
EASTERN DIVISION eee EE
CAPITAL CITY FINANCIAL GROUP, )
INC., an Indiana corporation, )
) Case No. 01 C 564
Plaintiff, )
) Honorable John W. Darrah
v. )
c Oo } JA
‘OUNTY OF COOK, an Illinois ) A »
corporation, ) N 2 P? 003
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant, County of Cook (“the County”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
59(e), moves for reconsideration of this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
October 16, 2002, denying the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count III of Plaintiff's,
Capital City Financial Group, Inc.’s (“Capital City”), complaint. For the reasons that follow, the
County’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function of correcting manifest errors of law or
fact or presenting newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the law. Cosgrove v.
Bartolotta, 150 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 1998). Reconsideration is appropriate when “the Court has
patently misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to
the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Spearman
Indus., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 139 F. Supp. 2d 943, 945 (N.D. II. 2001) (quoting

Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). A motion

e

-1-



for reconsideration cannot be used to introduce new legal theories for the first time, to raise legal
arguments that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion, or to present
evidence that could have been adduced during the pendency of the original motion. Publishers Res.,
Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publ’ns, Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985); In re Oil Spill by the “Amoco
Cadiz” off the Coast of France on March 16, 1978, 794 F. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Movants
should not use a motion for reconsideration to rehash arguments previously rejected by the court,
Sikora v. AFD Indus., Inc., 18 F. Supp. 841, 844 (N.D, Ill. 1998).
ANALYSIS

The County requests that this Court reconsider its decision of October 16, 2002. Ina
Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court denied the County’s and Capital City’s Motions for
Summary Judgment as to Count III, holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether Capital City’s reliance on the misrepresentations of Provident Hospital’s Associate
Administrator of Finance, Earl Bell, was justified. The County argues that reconsideration is proper
because the Court based its denial of the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the following
manifest errors of law and fact: the Court’s determination that (1) Bell’s representations were
binding on the County, (2) the factored accounts receivable from Swerbeh, Ltd. created a genuine
issue of material fact, and (3) the County asserted that there were material issues of fact with respect
to Bell’s knowledge.

Each of the arguments that the County asserts were raised in its own Motion for Summary
Judgment and in its opposition to Capital City’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
considered all of the issues raised by the County at that time.

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration under Rule 59, the movant must present

-2-