Clolinger v. Callahan

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “Plaintiffs’ allegations did not permit a reasonable inference that cardholders are direct payors” and that “Plaintiffs have not identified any controlling law that the Court overlooked”
• denying plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, but granting defendants’ motion for reconsideration and dismissing California claim
• “A motion for reconsideration is neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “A motion for reconsideration is ‘neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made.’” (quoting Simon v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2014))
• “A motion for reconsideration is ‘neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made.’” (quoting Simon v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2014))
• “A motion for reconsideration is ‘neither an occasion for repeating old arguments previously rejected nor an opportunity for making new arguments that could have previously been made.’” (quoting Simon v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 3d 423, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2014))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).