Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Trujillo v. Hise

February 23, 2006

LEONARD A. TRUJILLO, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GARY M. HISE, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; GERALD WHITMAN, CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO; AND THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Robert E. Blackburn

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER (DOC. 82) DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR RULE 54(B) CERTIFICATION

The matter before is plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order (Doc. 82) Denying Unopposed Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification [#104], filed February 16, 2006. I deny the motion.

The motion to reconsider questions my order denying defendants' motion to certify pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) my order granting summary judgment as to plaintiff's federal claims. I found that the order was not interlocutory and, therefore, certification under Rule 54(b) was not required. The motion for reconsideration, by contrast, relies on Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(a) and case law interpreting that rule. Nowhere in the original motion was this issue addressed.*fn1 A motion to reconsider is not the proper vehicle for advancing issues that could have been, but were not, raised previously:

Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted); see also All West Pet Supply Co. v. Hills' Pet Products Division, Colgate-Palmolive Co., 847 F.Supp. 858, 860 (D. Kan. 1994) ("'[A] party's failure to present his strongest case in the first instance does not entitle him to a second chance in the form of a motion to amend.'") (citation omitted).

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration of Order (Doc. 82) Denying Unopposed Motion for Rule 54(b) Certification [#104], filed February 16, 2006, is DENIED.

Dated February 22, 2006, at Denver, Colorado.

Robert E. Blackburn United States ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.