ORDER denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants are free to raise any appropriate legal or factual arguments at the summary judgment stage, but the Court sees no¶

Patel v. Texas Tech University et al, No. 5:17-cv-00174-C (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 30 · 2017-10-02 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 30

Filed 10/02/17

Page 1 of 2

PageID 382

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION

RAJIN PATEL,
Plaintiff,
v.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

)

Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-174-C

ORDER

On this day, the Court considered Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration of
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed September 27,2017. Defendants move for reconsideration
of this Court's prior order primarily based on an argument that their reply was not due until
September 27,2017, and they were in the process of preparing that reply when the Court issued
its ruling. 1
"The Court will entertain only motions and responses but no replies unless otherwise
ordered." Judge Specific Requirements for Senior District Judge Sam R. Cummings II.B
(available at www.txnd.uscourts.govIjudge/senior-district-judge-sam-cummings). Defendants
did not file a motion requesting leave to file any reply-as required by the undersigned's Judge
Specific Requirements for all proposed reply briefs-and the Court therefore found it
unnecessary to wait for a reply before issuing its ruling. Accordingly, the Court finds this
[Defendants further raise arguments that are merely recitations of the arguments already
made in their motion to dismiss. Those arguments have been rejected by this Court and the
Court need not address them further because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
recognize any official "motion for reconsideration" of a district court's order on a motion to
dismiss.

Case 5:17-cv-00174-C

Document 30

Filed 10/02/17

Page 2 of 2

PageID 383

argument unpersuasive. Further, the Court is of the opinion that the substantive arguments raised
by Defendants in their "Motion for Reconsideration" are better suited for resolution on summary
judgment. As stated in the Court's prior order, Plaintiff's Complaint is sufficiently well-pleaded
to survive Defendants' motion to dismiss at this early stage of the litigation. Defendants are free
to raise any appropriate legal or factual arguments at the summary judgment stage, but the Court
sees no valid reason to revisit its ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The Motion for Reconsi~tion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this

L

day of October,

JUDGE

2