Motion to Reconsider, Alter or Amend a Judgment for Maryland State Circuit Court

“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence." (See Lazaridis v. Wehmer (2010) 591 F. 3d 666, 669; Coleman v. Mayor, No. 1224, at *9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 21, 2015).)

“A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-litigate the merits of a claim.” (See Oyatedor v. Patterson, No. 1656, at *18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 7, 2018); Schlotzhauer v. Morton (2016) 224 Md. App. 72, 85 (2015), aff'd, 449 Md. 217.)

“A motion to reconsider is not a time machine in which to travel back and argue the case better with hindsight." (See Oyatedor v. Patterson, No. 1656, at *18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 7, 2018); Steinhoff v. Sommerfelt (2002) 144 Md. App. 463, 484.)

“Thus, when a party brings a motion requesting that a court reconsider a ruling solely because of new arguments that the party could have raised before the court ruled, the court has almost limitless discretion not to consider those argument[s]." (See id.)

“By contrast, when a party makes a prompt and timely request that a court reconsider a ruling because of a development that the party could not have raised before the court ruled, the court can and should reconsider its decision.” (See Schlotzhauer v. Morton (2015) 224 Md. App. 72, 85; Knish v. Stine (2004) 347 F.Supp.2d 682, 685–86.)

Rule 8-605 of the Maryland Court Rules deals with motions to reconsider. It states that “except as otherwise provided in Rule 8-602(e), a party may file pursuant to this Rule a motion for reconsideration of a decision by the Court that disposes of the appeal.” (See Md. R. Rev. Ct. App. & Spec. App. 8-605(a).)

“The motion shall be filed (1) before issuance of the mandate or (2) within 30 days after the filing of the opinion of the Court, whichever is earlier.” (See id.)

“A response to a motion for reconsideration may not be filed unless requested on behalf of the Court by at least one judge who concurred in the opinion or order.” (See id.)

“Except to make changes in the opinion that do not change the decision in the case, the Court ordinarily will not grant a motion for reconsideration unless it has requested a response. There shall be no oral argument on the motion.” (See id.)

“A motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to raise arguments that the party neglected to make earlier.” (See Morton v. Schlotzhauer (2016) 449 Md. 217, 232 n.10; Rose v. Rose, No. 208-2021, at *5 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 13, 2022).)

“A motion for reconsideration should only be granted if the party seeking reconsideration shows at least one of the following:

(See Coleman v. Mayor, No. 1224, at *9 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 21, 2015); N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co. (1995) 52 F. 3d 1194, 1218.)

“A motion for reconsideration, as its name implies, means the reconsideration of issues already considered and decided.” (See Friends of Croom Civic Ass'n v. Prince George's Cnty. Planning Bd. of the Md.-Nat. Capital Park, No. 2177, at *7 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 8, 2017).)

“A motion for reconsideration cannot inject new issues.” (See id.)

“The standard of review for a trial court's ruling on a motion for reconsideration is abuse of discretion.” (See Wilson-X v. Department of Human Resources (2008) 403 Md. 667, 674-75; Brooks v. Brooks, No. 1512, at *4 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Nov. 14, 2016).)

“An appellate challenge to the denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Md. Rule 2-534 does not serve the normal functions of an appeal from the original judgment.” (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Cent. Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Cent. GMC, Inc. (2010) 194 Md. App. 375, 397.)

“Instead, appellate review of the post-judgment ruling is typically limited in scope." (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018; Rose v. Rose (2018) 236 Md. App. 117, 129 (2018) citing Schlotzhauer v. Morton (2015) 224 Md. App. 72, 84 (2015), aff'd, 449 Md. 217 (2016).)

“Because a motion to alter or amend is directed to the sound discretion of the court, the appellate court will not disturb the ruling absent an abuse of discretion.” (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Cent. Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Cent. GMC, Inc. (2010) 194 Md. App. 375, 397-98.)

“A party appealing from the denial of a motion to alter or amend a judgment must carry a far heavier appellate burden on that issue than he [or she] would carry in challenging a ruling made before the judgment.” (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Steinhoff v. Sommerfelt (2002) 144 Md. App. 463, 484.)

"Above and beyond arguing the intrinsic merits of an issue, [the appellant] must also make a strong case for why a judge, having once decided the merits, should in his [or her] broad discretion [have] deign[ed] to revisit them." (See id.)

“A motion to alter or amend under Rule 2-534 is not an occasion for a party to make arguments that it neglected to make initially." (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Morton v. Schlotzhauer (2016) 449 Md. 217, 232 n.10.)

“When a party moves to alter or amend a judgment solely because of new arguments that the party could have raised before the court ruled on the underlying judgment, the court has almost limitless discretion not to consider those new arguments.” (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Schlotzhauer v. Morton (2015) 224 Md. App. 72, 85.)

“The circuit court does not abuse its discretion when it declines to entertain a legal argument made for the first time in a motion to alter or amend that could have, and should have, been made earlier[.]" (See Raley v. Ziner, No. 701, at *18-19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 25, 2018); Morton v. Schlotzhauer (2016) 449 Md. 217, 232 n.10.)

“The question on appeal is whether a trial judge's decision not to address the new argument was so egregiously wrong . . . as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion." (See Stuples v. Balt. City Police Dept. (1998) 119 Md. App. 221, 232; Oyatedor v. Patterson, No. 1656, at *18 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 7, 2018).)

It is well settled that “the argument made in pursuit of a motion for reconsideration…must be significantly different than an argument on the merits of the case. The movant must persuade the judge why, having once considered the case, the judge would wish to consider it all over again.” (See Houck v. Nadel, No. 0091, at *6 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 21, 2016).)

It is also well settled that “on a motion to alter or amend, the party from whom production is sought bears the burden of demonstrating that the court should change its mind as to a decision it has already reached.” (See Chesapeake Reg'l Info. Sys. for Our Patients v. Tham, No. 0648, at *7 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 24, 2019).)