The burden rests with the party seeking reconsideration to "demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion."

—stating that "the court must not allow a party to use the motion to reargue as a substitute for appealing from a final judgment

Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, reconsideration is appropriate only if " `the court overlooked matters or controlling decisions which, had they been considered, might reasonably have altered the result reached by the court.'"

"[A] motion to reconsider will not be granted where the moving party is merely trying to relitigate an already decided issue."

Chrisha has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked any factual matters or controlling legal authority in connection with its February 15, 2005 memo endorsement.

Accordingly, the Floyd Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to "demonstrate that the Court overlooked... factual matters that were put before it."

Thus a movant may not advance new facts, issues or arguments that were not previously presented to the Court, nor may the movant reargue issues already considered