United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Alter, Amend, or Vacate Memorandum Opinion and Order Entered
November 15, 2017 [DN 38]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe
for decision. For the following reasons, the Plaintiff's
Motion is DENIED.
Greg Coulter brought this lawsuit after he was terminated
from his position at the Bowling Green-Warren County Regional
Airport (the “Airport”). On June 13, 2017,
Plaintiff filed this action in Warren County Circuit Court
against the Airport, Robert Barnett, the City of Bowling
Green and Warren County. On July 5, 2017, Defendants jointly
removed this action to this Court on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
(Joint Notice of Removal [DN 1].) Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint included five claims: Family and Medical Leave Act
interference, disability discrimination, age discrimination,
tortious interference with a contract, and hostile work
environment. (Amend. Compl. [DN 12].) In a Memorandum Opinion
and Order dated November 15, 2017 [DN 34], this Court
dismissed Plaintiff's claims of tortious interference
with a contract and hostile work environment, as well as all
claims against Warren County and Robert Barnett. Plaintiff
now brings this motion, asking the Court to reconsider his
claims for tortious interference with a contract (which would
make a plausible claim against Robert Barnett) and hostile
Standard of Review
Sixth Circuit recognizes that a district court has authority
both under common law and under Rule 54(b) “to
reconsider interlocutory orders and to reopen any part of a
case before entry of final judgment.” Rodriguez v.
Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 Fed.Appx.
949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). “Traditionally, courts will find
justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders when
there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2)
new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Id.
(citing Reich v. Hall Holding Co., 990 F.Supp. 955,
965 (N.D. Ohio 1998)); see also United States v.
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, No.
06-386-KSF, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77478, at *3, 2008 WL
4490200, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 2, 2008); Edmonds v.
Rees, No. 3:06-CV-P301-H, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61839,
at *7, 2008 WL 3820432, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Aug. 13, 2008). A
motion to reconsider under Rule 54(b) may not, however,
“serve as a vehicle to identify facts or raise legal
arguments which could have been, but were not, raised or
adduced during the pendency of the motion of which
reconsideration [is] sought.” Owensboro Grain Co.,
LLC v. AUI Contr., LLC, No. CIV.A. 4:08CV-94-JHM, 2009
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18025, at *6, 2009 WL 650456, at *2 (W.D.
Ky. Mar. 10, 2009) (quoting Jones v. Casey's Gen.
Stores, 551 F.Supp.2d 848, 854-55 (S.D. Iowa 2008)).
“Motions for reconsideration are not intended to
re-litigate issues previously considered by the Court or to
present evidence that could have been raised earlier.”
Ne. Ohio Coal. for Homeless v. Brunner, 652
F.Supp.2d 871, 877 (S.D. Ohio 2009). “The moving party
has the burden of showing that reconsideration is warranted,
and that some harm or injustice would result if
reconsideration were to be denied.” Pueschel v.
Natl Air Traffic Controllers' Ass'n, 606
F.Supp.2d 82, 85 (D.D.C. 2009).
the above standard to this motion, the Court denies
Plaintiffs Motion to Alter, Amend, or Vacate. The arguments
raised in Plaintiffs motion were previously advanced by
Plaintiff in his Response and Objection to Defendant Airport
Board's Motion to Dismiss [DN 26]. Neither the law nor
the facts as set forth by the Plaintiff have changed since
the Court previously ruled on these matters. Further,
Plaintiff has not met his burden of proving that the Court
committed a clear error in its earlier decision. “A
Rule 59(e) motion is not properly used as a vehicle to
re-hash old arguments or to advance positions that could have
been argued earlier, but were not.” Gray v.
Commissioner of Social Sec, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98264,
2006 WL 3825066, *2 (E.D. Mich. December 13, 2006) (citing
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v.
Engler, 146 F.3d 367, 374 (6th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff
may disagree with the Court's decision, but that is an
issue for appeal, not reconsideration.
reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Alter, Amend, or
Vacate Memorandum Opinion and Order Entered November 15, 2017
 Although Plaintiff moves to alter,
amend, or vacate under Rule 59(e), “Rule 59(e) does not
provide an appropriate means to challenge a non-final
order.” Saunders v. Ford Motor Co., No.
3:14-CV-00594-JHM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101659, *2 (W.D. Ky.
Aug. 3, 2015) (citing Simmerman v. Ace Bayou Corp.,
304 F.R.D. 516, 518 (E.D. Ky. 2015)). As there has been no
final order or judgment in this case, see Davey v. St.
John Health, 297 Fed.Appx. 466, 469 (6th Cir. 2008)
(when a plaintiff's case has remaining claims, an order
of dismissal as to less than all defendants is not a final
order), the relief Plaintiff seeks is only available under
Rule 54(b), see Edmonds v. Rees, No. ...