Ghani v. ARS Pharmaceuticals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JUSTIN GHANI,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARS PHARMACEUTICALS,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-2282-JAR-TJJ
ORDER DENYING PLANTIFF’S MOTION
FOR INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Incorporation by Reference (ECF
No. 47). Plaintiff requests the Court consider the additional details that were not added to his
Second Amended Complaint. These additional details are the same three factual paragraphs he
was recently denied leave to amend as untimely. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore construed as a
motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 30, 2026 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Leave to Amend (ECF No. 46) and denied.1
District of Kansas Local Rule 7.3 addresses motions to reconsider a court order. It provides
that a “motion to reconsider must be based on: (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2)
the availability of new evidence, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.”2 It is well settled that a motion to reconsider is not a second opportunity for a party to
ask the court to consider new arguments and supporting facts that could have been presented
1 D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(3) provides the Court “may deny a motion to reconsider pursuant to D. Kan.
Rule 7.3 without awaiting a response.”
2 D. Kan. Rule 7.3.
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 48 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 3

2
originally. 3 Nor is a motion to reconsider “a second chance for the losing party to make its
strongest case or to dress up arguments that previously failed.”4 “It is not appropriate to revisit
issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”5
Improper use of motions to reconsider can waste judicial resources and obstruct the efficient
administration of justice.6 Reconsideration may, however, be appropriate “where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the controlling law.” 7
After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes Plaintiff has not argued or shown
any of the bases for granting reconsideration are present. Plaintiff does not argue or show that there
has been an intervening change in the controlling law. Nor does Plaintiff argue or present any new
evidence that was unavailable at the time he filed his original motion. Finally, he does not argue
reconsideration is warranted to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Even had Plaintiff
argued this last basis for reconsideration, it does not change the fact that Plaintiff’s motion was
untimely filed and he had multiple prior opportunities to add these allegations in his two amended
complaints or any of his four prior motions to amend.
3 Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
4 Ward v. Wesley Med. Ctr., LLC, No. 23-1091-HLT-BGS, 2024 WL 989880, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar.
7, 2024) (quoting Voelkel v. Gen. Motors Corp., 846 F. Supp. 1482, 1483 (D. Kan. 1994), aff'd, 43 F.3d
1484 (10th Cir. 1994)).
5 Id. (citations omitted).
6 RTC v. Williams, 165 F.R.D. 639, 642 (D. Kan. 1996) (quoting United States ex rel. Houck v.
Folding Carton Admin. Comm., 121 F.R.D. 69, 71 (N.D. Ill. 1988)).
7 Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 48 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Incorporation by Reference
(ECF No. 47) is construed as a motion for reconsideration and denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated February 5, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
Teresa J. James
U. S. Magistrate Judge
Case 2:25-cv-02282-JAR-JBW Document 48 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 3