Opinion ID: 729699
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of the Action against McGreevey and Walker

Text: 32 The plaintiff contends that the District Court violated the law of the case in dismissing the action against defendants McGreevey and Walker. The law of the case doctrine posits that if a court decides a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern in subsequent stages of the same case. DiLaura v. Power Authority of State of New York, 982 F.2d 73, 76 (2d Cir.1992). The plaintiff asserts that the District Court denied summary judgment to McGreevey and Walker because there were genuine issues of material fact going to their involvement in the termination of the plaintiff. She further maintains that at trial the plaintiff made the exact showing that the Court stated would be sufficient to send the case to a jury in its denial of summary judgment. The plaintiff therefore concludes that the trial court violated the law of the case in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. 33 Even assuming for the sake of argument that all of the plaintiff's contention are true, the trial court did not err. Application of the law of the case doctrine is discretionary and does not limit a court's power to reconsider its own decisions prior to final judgment. Id. at 76 (citations omitted). Among the major grounds justifying such a reconsideration is the availability of new evidence. Id. (citations omitted). In this case, the trial that intervened between the District Court's denial of summary judgment to McGreevey and Walker and its subsequent grant of their motion to dismiss provided new evidence about their lack of involvement. The District Court therefore was not constrained by the law of the case doctrine from reconsidering its prior determination.