on

issues raised in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss at that time. “‘A district court is not required to
specifically address [in its opinion] each and every [fact] asserted ... ." Shannon v. Saks & Co., No.
94 C 1793, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9324, at *6 (N.D. Tl], July 3, 1995). Plaintiffs motion to
reconsider merely restates arguments previously rejected by the Court and, therefore, is denied. See
Sikora, 18 F. Supp. at 844. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint instanter.
CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs, Oneta S. Colc’s, Motion to Reconsider is denied,

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

y

Date: \etewunes /f ZB OC Wral.

J ohn W. Darrah, Judge
United States District Court



Minute Biter Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Name of Assigned Judge Jobn W. Darrah Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 € 1858 DATE 1/16/2003
CASE ONETA §S. COLE vs. U.S. CAPITAL, INC., et al
TITLE

{ln the following box (a) indicate the purty filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintitt, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.)

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due

(3) im Answer brief to motion due____. Reply toanswerbriefdue_

(4) gq Ruling/Hearingon ss setfor_ at.

(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for]on_—ssetfor_ at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [sct for/rc-sct for]on set for at

(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—_at

(8) a [BenctJury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_ at

(9) Q This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agrecment/pursuant to]

OFRCP4(m) OC Local Rule 41,1 COFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2). .

qo Mf [Other docket entry] Status hearing held and continued to 3/4/03 at 9:00 a.m. Enter Memorandum
Opinion And Order. Plaintiffs motion to reconsider is denied. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is
granted.

(il) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

i required.
No notices required, number of notices

Notices mailed by judge’s staff AN 21 2003

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
wv | Docketing to muil notices. ” . 9
F PMs pay :
Mail AQ 450) form. aa very on Abcketing deputy fhitals N
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.
ce:
courtroom PE LE ey ate malled note
LG deputy’s
initials

Date/titite teceivad iat
central Clerk's Office naling deputy nas



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DISTRICT

JAN 2 1 2003

ONETA S. COLE,
Case No. 02 C 1858
Plaintiff,
Honorable John W. Darrah
Vv.

U.S. CAPITAL, INC; AUTONATION
USA CORPORATION; and JERRY
GLEASON CHEVROLET, INC.;

wueveuee eevee

Detendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Oneta S. Cole (“Plaintiff”), moves for reconsideration of the Court’s
October 24, 2002 decision granting Defendants’, U.S. Capital, Inc.; AutoNation USA Corporation;
and Jerry Gleason Chevrolet, inc.’s (“Defendants”), motion to dismiss on the ground that Defendants
had made a “firm offer of credit” within the meaning of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1681 et seq. (“FCRA”). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is
denied, and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend is granted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Motions for reconsideration scrve 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 prescnted
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. Ill. 2001) (quoting

“1



Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990)). A motion
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); Jn re Oil Spill by the “Amoca
Cadiz” off the Coast of France on March 16, 1978, 794 ¥. Supp. 261, 267 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Movants
should not use a motion for reconsideration to rehash arguments previously rejected by the court.
Sikora vy. AFD Indus., Tnc., 18 F. Supp. 841, 844 (N.D. Tl. 1998).
ANALYSIS

Plaintiff requests that this Court reconsider its decision of October 24, 2002. In a
Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, holding that
the allegations in the amended complaint reasonably supported the inference that Defendants had
obtained Plaintiff's credit report for the purpose of extending her a “firm offer of credit”, a
permissible purpose under the FCRA. Plaintiff argues that (1) the Court failed to address her
principal argument that no offer was made because the terms were insufficient to permit acceptance
and that the offer was inherently ambiguous, (2) the offer was not “clear and conspicuous”, and (3)
the offer of a credit line of $300.00 or more was too small to constitute a “firm offer of credit”.
Plaintiff requests that the Court hold that Defendants did not make a “firm offer of credit” or, in the
alternative, grant Plaintiff leave file a second amended complaint alleging the offer to be a sham.

Each of the arguments that Plaintiff asserts were raised in Plaintiff's opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Although some of these issues were not explicitly discussed in the

earlier Memorandum Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2002, the Court considered all of the

2