In this case, the court previously ordered the parties to arbitration. The plaintiffs then moved to reconsider that decision, but they advanced no new argument. They merely restated old arguments in slightly different language. That is not permitted in a motion for reconsideration.
“The Court may a grant Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment if the movant presents newly discovered evidence that was not available at the time of trial, points to evidence in the record that clearly establishes a manifest error of law or fact, or if the Court previously misunderstood a party’s arguments. Miller v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 683 F.3d 805, 813 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ligas,549 F.3d 497, 501 (7th Cir. 2008).”
“First, Pioneer argues that the arbitration language in Menard’s Conditions of Order is procedurally unconscionable under Illinois law. Pioneer contends that the purchase order only refers to the “current terms and conditions issued by Midwest Manufacturing” and does not refer to a document entitled “Conditions of Order,” and that Pioneer did not receive a copy of the Conditions of Order. [48, at ¶¶ 20-25.] Thus, in Pioneer’s view, the arbitration language was “hidden” in the Conditions of Order and not conspicuous. [Id. at ¶ 39.] Pioneer asserts that reconsideration is warranted because the Court misunderstood that Pioneer did not have a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms within the Conditions of Order and did not consider whether the inclusion of the arbitration clause in a separate document was procedurally unconscionable. [Id. at ¶ 46; 62, at 3.]
This argument fails because it is merely a thinly-veiled attempt to advance an argument that the Court previously rejected. See Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Reconsideration is not an appropriate forum for rehashing previously rejected arguments or arguing matters that could have been heard during the pendency of the previous motion.”).”
Source: Gonzalez v. PIONEER INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS, LLC, Dist. Court, ND Illinois 2017 – Google Scholar