Auto Services Co., Inc. v. KPMG, LLP

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “while the local rule cited by the District Court may apply to motions for reconsideration of a court’s interlocutory rulings, we doubt that the local rule was intended to apply to post-judgment motions filed [under] Rule 59(e).”
• noting that a party must ordinarily wait until a final judgment is entered to seek reconsideration of a non- appealable interlocutory order under Rule 59(e
• observing that earlier interlocutory orders dismissing fewer than all claims merge with the judgment dismissing the remaining claims
• observing that an order dismissing some of the plaintiff’s claims “was not a final judgment because it dismissed fewer than all of the claims asserted in [the plaintiff’s] lawsuit”
• “[A]n order dismissing fewer than all claims or parties is generally not a final judgment.”
• “A „motion for reconsideration‟ is not described in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but such a motion is typically construed as 2 The District Court noted that the Motion for Reconsideration was untimely under Local Rule 7.1(g

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).