United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co. (2018)

Minn. May 21, 2025) (quoting United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018)).

Aug. 19, 2025) (citing United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, 8 Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.

According to case law, “[t]he general purpose of a motion for 18 clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” United 19 States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018) (citation 20 omitted).

Sept. 25, 2023) (quoting United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018)).

Sept. 25, 2023) (quoting United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018)).

Reconsidering prior orders through the lens of Rule 54(b) affords district courts the “broad discretion” of that Rule, but courts in this District have held that justice may require a court to reconsider one of its previous orders at least where there has been “(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the [court’s previous] order.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd…

“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” N. Alaska Env’t Ctr, 2023 WL 3661998 , at *3 (citing United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).

Discussion A. Motion for Clarification “There is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure specifically governing motions for clarification.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).

“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or 27 clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” Id. (citing United States v. 28 All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018)). 1 Motions for clarification are appropriate when parties “are uncertain about the scope of a 2 ruling” or when the ruling is “reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.” Id. 3 (citing All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer …

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (quotation omitted).

As in Washington, “[t]here is no Federal Rule of Civil Procedure specifically governing motions for clarification.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).

Parties are encouraged “to file motions for clarification when they are uncertain about the scope of a ruling.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).

Coeur seeks to present expert testimony with respect to Coeur’s impossibility and impracticability defenses, asserting that “because it was impossible or commercially impracticable for Coeur to construct the mine’s necessary facilities solely on the Kensington properties, Coeur should not lose the benefit of recouping those costs as promised in the Royalty Deed.”104 Coeur maintains that expert testimony is relevant to these defenses because they will “likely involve technica…

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (quotation omitted).

“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.”32 Motions for clarification are appropriate when parties “are uncertain about the scope of a ruling” or when the ruling is “reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.”33 DISCUSSION The Court clarifies its Order Re Motions for Reconsideration to specify that the second notice provision regarding ground-disturbing activities extends to the…

“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.”32 Motions for clarification are appropriate when parties “are uncertain about the scope of a ruling” or when the ruling is “reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.”33 DISCUSSION The Court clarifies its Order Re Motions for Reconsideration to specify that the second notice provision regarding ground-disturbing activities extends to the…

The “moving party has the burden to demonstrate that reconsideration is appropriate,” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018), and the court’s discretion to grant a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration is “broad.” North v. DOJ, 810 F. Supp. 2d 205, 207 (D.D.C. 2011).

Because Jordan’s motion for sanctions is baseless, it is denied. 3 “The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018) (citation omitted).

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate ‘that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.’” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 97 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 249 F. Supp. 3d 215, 222 (D.D.C. 2017)).

Ariz. Aug. 19, 2020) (quoting United States v. All Assets Held at 24 Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018)).

“Ultimately, the moving party has the burden to demonstrate ‘that reconsideration is appropriate and that harm or injustice would result if reconsideration were denied.’” United States v. All 3 Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 97 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting FBME Bank Ltd. v. Mnuchin, 249 F. Supp. 3d 215, 222 (D.D.C. 2017)).

“The general purpose of a motion for clarification is to explain or clarify something ambiguous or vague, not to alter or amend.” United States v. All Assets Held, 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 793 F. Supp. 2d 164, 168 (D.D.C. 2011)). “[C]ourts in this circuit have encouraged parties to file motions for clarification when they are uncertain about the scope of a ruling.” Id. (citing Volvo Powertrain Corp., 758 F.3d at …

In any event, “a district court has inherent authority to reconsider its interlocutory orders as justice requires[,]” United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 96 (D.D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and this is especially so with respect to findings that the Court initially (and mistakenly) considered immaterial to the legal issue at hand.

Id. at 101, 103 ; see United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., Ltd. (“All Assets VII”), 315 F. Supp. 3d 90 (D.D.C. 2018) (clarifying these holdings).

See United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Co., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).

See United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius, Baer & Company, Ltd., 315 F. Supp. 3d 90, 99 (D.D.C. 2018).