Rose v. City of West Frankfort et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
TINA ROSE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WEST FRANKFORT,
TIMOTHY C. ARVIEW, and
THAD SNELL,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-00845-JPG
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Tina Rose’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
55). The motion asks the Court to reconsider its Memorandum and Order, entered October 22,
2025, that stayed this action under the Colorado River doctrine (Doc. 54). Defendants filed a
response (Doc. 56). “A court has the power to revisit prior decisions of its own . . . in any
circumstance, although as a rule courts should be loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary
circumstances . . . .” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988). The
decision of whether to reconsider a previous ruling in the same case is governed by the law of the
case doctrine. Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570, 571–72 (7th Cir. 2006). The
law of the case is a discretionary doctrine that creates a presumption against reopening matters
already decided in the same litigation and authorizes reconsideration only for a compelling
reason such as where the court has misunderstood a party, where the court has made a decision
outside the adversarial issues presented to the court by the parties, where the court has made an
error of apprehension (not of reasoning), where a significant change in the law has occurred, or
where significant new facts have been discovered. See Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese
Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).
Case 3:25-cv-00845-JPG Document 59 Filed 10/29/25 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
The Court starts by addressing Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants made a false
representation of fact by asserting their belief that “Plaintiff has filed/intends to file a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.” This statement is not an allegation of fact. See
Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp. Retiree Med. Benefits Tr. v. Walgreen Co., 631 F.3d 436, 442 (7th
Cir. 2011) (stating that an allegation based on information and belief means that the party “has a
good-faith reason for believing what he is saying” but acknowledges “that his allegations are
‘based on secondhand information that [he] believes to be true.’”). The statement was made
based on Defendants’ good faith belief that Plaintiff would appeal. At the time Defendants filed
their motion, Plaintiff still had thirteen days to file a petition for leave to appeal. In addition,
Plaintiff made at least three statements that indicated she had plans to appeal. Accordingly, the
Court rejects Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendants made a false representation of fact regarding
her intention to appeal.
Even if Defendants did make a false representation of fact regarding Plaintiff’s intention
to appeal, there is not a compelling reason for the Court to reconsider its decision. The Court
finds this for two reasons. First, the fact that Plaintiff did not file an appeal in Rose v. City and
Snell is not a new fact. Plaintiff asserts in her motion for reconsideration that she “never intended
to file” a petition for leave to appeal. If her statement is true, then she knew that she was not
going to appeal the decision when she filed her Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 35). In other words, the fact existed at the time Plaintiff filed her response brief.
Since Plaintiff’s intention to appeal is not a new fact, it does not constitute a compelling reason
for the Court to reconsider its decision. Second, Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that the Court’s
decision rested solely on its finding that Rose v. City and Snell was a parallel proceeding. The
Case 3:25-cv-00845-JPG Document 59 Filed 10/29/25 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Court’s order makes it clear that it found three parallel proceedings: Rose v. City and Snell, Rose
v. Arview, and Rose v. Snell. The Court acknowledges that Rose v. City and Snell is not a
pending case, and therefore, is not a parallel proceeding. However, it still concludes that there
are two parallel proceedings—Rose v. Arview and Rose v. Snell—and that the exceptional
circumstances factors weigh in favor of abstention. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff Tina
Rose’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 55).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	October 29, 2025
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00845-JPG Document 59 Filed 10/29/25 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>