In denying Mayweather's motion for reconsideration (notably, WWE did not file a similar motion and Mayweather Jr. did not join the motion), the Court recognized at the outset that "[m]otions under Rule 59 are not to be made lightly: 'reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.'” [internal citation omitted]. The Court noted that "“[m]ere disagreement" with a court’s ruling" does not support a motion for reconsideration.
Because the Court held that Mayweather was not seeking reconsideration based upon an intervening change in the law or on account of new evidence and was, instead, arguing that Court erred in applying the law, the Court summarily denied the motion.
Specifically, the Court held:
Defendants’ motion to reconsider seeks to relitigate matters previously decided by the court and appears to be based largely on their displeasure with the court’s prior ruling. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is at odds with Baker and Westinghouse and is therefore inappropriate. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.One point to note: disagreeing with a judge's ruling and asking the same judge to reconsider his decision because you think he got it wrong on the law is seldom going to go well. That is why there is the ability to appeal down the road.