A court should consider neither new evidence nor a new legal theory which could have been presented on the original motion, taking into account due diligence. Mere disagreement with the court is a ground for an appeal, not a motion for reconsideration. The initial argument by plaintiffs is that the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the First Eastern defendants. The argument generally is a re-hash of the arguments 4 presented in the original briefs of the parties, and we could deny the motion for reconsideration on that basis alone. We limit our analysis to those points raised for the first time.
Plaintiffs misconstrue our prior memorandum and order before arguing that there was error.
They state that we held that Rolo v. Plaintiffs' argument amounts to nothing more than a contention that the role of an alleged aider and abettor should be viewed as the same as one who actually conducts the affairs of the enterprise, and is simply wrong. They contend that the court cannot raise the defense of the statute of limitations sua sponte. The argument is actually rather silly, since the statute of limitations defense had been raised by 5 defendants and was the subject of motions for summary judgment. It therefore was not raised sua sponte.