Slip-Op. 07-97
UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
____________________________________
:
JOHN R. DEMOS, :
:
Plaintiff, :
: Before: Judith M. Barzilay, Judge
v. : Consol. Ct. No. 07-00014
:
UNITED STATES, :
:
Defendant. :
____________________________________:
MEMORANDUM ORDER
[Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.]
(John R. Demos, Jr.), Plaintiff, Pro Se.
Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Director; (Michael D.
Panzera), Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice for
Defendant United States.
Dated: June 25, 2007
BARZILAY, JUDGE:
Plaintiff in the above captioned matter moves pursuant to USCIT Rule 59(a)(2) to have
this court reconsider its judgment in Demos v. United States, No. 07-82, 2007 WL 1492413 (CIT
May. 23, 2007), granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for restrictions on future
filings. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied, and
Plaintiff is barred from making any future filings with this Court without advance approval of a
judge from this Court.
The disposition of a motion for reconsideration lies within “the sound discretion of the
court.” United States v. Gold Mountain Coffee, Ltd., 8 CIT 336, 336, 601 F. Supp. 212, 214
Consol Ct. No. 07-00014 Page 2
(1984). A court generally will grant such a motion only to “rectify[] a significant flaw in the
conduct of the original proceeding.” Id. (quotations & citation omitted). Specifically,
[a] rehearing may be proper when there was: (1) an error or irregularity in the
trial; (2) a serious evidentiary flaw; (3) a discovery of important new evidence
which was not available even to the diligent party at the time of trial; or (4) an
occurrence at trial in the nature of an accident or unpredictable surprise or
unavoidable mistake which impaired a party’s ability to adequately present its
case.
Id. at 336–37, 601 F. Supp. at 214. A motion for reconsideration will not be granted merely to
give a losing party another chance to re-litigate the case or present arguments it previously raised.
See id. at 337, 601 F. Supp. at 214.
As in his original complaints, Plaintiff sets forth numerous, often incoherent, non-
justiciable arguments in support of his motion. See, e.g., Mot. Recons. 3 (“Reasons Why Motion
Should Be Granted . . . . The U.S. Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over and the
power to ‘review’ all matters, issues, and laws that concern, and impact upon the following: Gold
hoarding by a few countries.”). See generally Mot. Recons. Because these claims set forth no
legitimate grounds upon which the court should reconsider its decision and simply mark yet
another attempt by Plaintiff to congest the court system with frivolous litigation, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Furthermore, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff is barred from making any future filings with this Court without
advance approval of a judge from this Court.
June 25, 2007 /s/ Judith M. Barzilay
Dated:_____________________ ______________________
New York, NY Judge