- SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PENNSYLVANIA PDF
- SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PENNSYLVANIA SERIES
"The idea that the cost of owning a plane is variable or 'avoidable' because you can move the plane from one route to another does not appear in the 1986 version of Antitrust Law or in any version or supplement until 1999." July 26 Reply at 3. "Professor Hovenkamp's 1999 Supplement is the first place he ever expressed the view that aircraft ownership cost is a variable cost because the plane can be moved from one route to another." July 26 Reply at 3. "It is only in his 1999 Supplement that adds a footnote that for the first time asserts that the ownership cost or cost of aircraft capital should be considered to be variable because an airplane can be moved from one route to another." July 26 Reply at 4, n.2. "While still retained as the DOJ's 'litigative expert,' revised the next supplement to Antitrust Law, to suggest, for the first time, that the entire cost of owning an aircraft should be considered a variable cost rather than a fixed cost." July 26 Reply at 1 (emphasis in original). 
The July 26 Reply, a pleading to which the United States had no opportunity to respond, contained the following mischaracterizations of various editions of and supplements to Professor Hovenkamp's treatise, 3 P.
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PENNSYLVANIA SERIES
The error that is the subject of this motion was promoted by a series of misstatements in American's Reply Memorandum in Support of American's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge Humphreys' JOrder Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order ("July 26 Reply").
American Promoted and Continues to Foster this Error through Misstatements Concerning Professor Hovenkamp's Antitrust Law Treatise. Consistent with the standard applicable to motions for reconsideration, the United States simply seeks to correct a "manifest error of fact," now part of the public record, which implies that Professor Hovenkamp revised his position following his consultation with the United States. The United States properly filed its Motion for Reconsideration to provide the Court with an opportunity to correct the following factually- erroneous statement: "that after writing the letter and consulting with the government, Hovenkamp revised the treatise, adding a footnote which suggested for the first time that the entire cost of an airplane (in addition to depreciation and obsolescence) should be considered a variable cost." September 28 Order at 2. "A motion to reconsider is proper when the court has obviously misapprehended a party's position, the facts or the law, or has decided issues outside of those presented in the original motion." Voelkel v. "It is the general rule that a motion to reconsider is the opportunity for the court to correct manifest errors of law or of fact and to review newly discovered evidence." Taliaferro v. Reconsideration is Necessary to Correct a Factual Error Contained in the Court's Order. American's refusal to accept the sworn statements of Professor Hovenkamp concerning the meaning of the treatise which he authored serves no purpose but to prolong the false impression created by American in its Motion to Review and supporting papers. Professor Hovenkamp's declaration establishes the existence of the error in the record and, other than claiming that the declaration is "ambiguous," American does not dispute the contents of the declaration. The answer, based on Professor Hovenkamp's writings since at least 1986, and confirmed by his declaration, is clearly "yes."Īmerican prevailed on its Motion to Review, and the United States no longer seeks the return of the document which led to filing of that motion the United States merely seeks a correction to the public record. Instead, the issue is whether Professor Hovenkamp has consistently maintained that the ability of an airline to shift aircraft from one market to another means that aircraft costs are variable (or "avoidable") on a route where predation is alleged. 
The issue presented here is not whether American agrees with Professor Hovenkamp's analysis of relevant costs - clearly it does not. Plaintiff United States submits this Reply in Support of its Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's SeptemOrder Granting Defendants' Motion to Review Magistrate Judge Humphreys' Decision of J("September 28 Order"). ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO REVIEW
For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.įOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS _įOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COURT'S SEPTEMBER 28, 2000,
SAMPLE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION PENNSYLVANIA PDF
To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).
0 kommentar(er)
