United States District Court, D. Colorado
GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY and UNIQUE HOME DESIGNS, INC., Plaintiffs,
NGL WAREHOUSE, LLC, Defendant.
A. BRIMMER United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment
on Contractual Indemnity Claim [Docket No. 142]. The Court
has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for
motions for reconsideration. See Hatfield v. Bd. of Cty.
Comm'rs for Converse Cty., 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th
Cir. 1995). It is, however, within the Court's discretion
to reconsider its rulings. See Fye v. Okla. Corp.
Comm'n, 516 F.3d 1217, 1223 n.2 (10th Cir. 2008)
(“The District Court's partial summary judgment
ruling was not a final judgment. Thus, [plaintiff's]
motion for reconsideration is considered an interlocutory
motion invoking the district court's general
discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory
rulings prior to entry of final judgment.”). When doing
so, the Court considers whether new evidence or legal
authority has emerged or whether the prior ruling was clearly
in error. See Vigil v. Colorado Dep't. of
Corrections, No. 09-cv-01676-PAB-KLM, 2011 WL 1518660,
at *1 (D. Colo. Apr. 20, 2011); cf. Servants of the
Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)
(“[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.”) (citations
September 21, 2016, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion
for Summary Judgment Re: Contractual Indemnity Claim. Docket
No. 140. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment for breach of the
indemnity provisions contained in the Warehouse Agreement
that Unique Home Designs, Inc. (“Unique”) and NGL
Warehouse, LLC (“NGL”) signed. Plaintiffs argued
in their motion that “NGL's admissions that its
failure to comply with Unique's SOPs (regarding the
failure to properly palletize the doors) was the cause of the
Valdez accident are legally and factually dispositive in this
contractually based claim for indemnity.”
Docket No. 74 at 18 (emphasis in original) (citations
omitted). The Court found that defendant's failure to
follow the standard operating procedures (“SOPS”)
did not necessarily constitute a violation of the undefined
“standard of care” referenced in Section 3.17 of
the Warehouse Agreement or necessarily constitute negligence
under Section 12.01 of the Warehouse Agreement. Docket No.
140 at 13-14; see also Docket No. 105-1 at 8.
requesting reconsideration, plaintiffs rely on NGL's
response to plaintiffs' interrogatories that the August
2012 SOPS were an “operating procedure” that
“applied to the packaging of the subject doors”
as an admission that the SOPS defined the standard of care.
Docket No. 74-2 at 6. Plaintiffs further rely on NGL's
statement in its response brief that “NGL understood
that [Unique] expected its doors to be packaged in accordance
with the SOPs.” Docket No. 144 at 4. Plaintiffs claim that
this statement and Section 4.05 of the Warehouse Agreement,
which incorporates the then-current SOPS by reference, show
that the SOPS were a “covenant” under the
Warehouse Agreement such that a breach of the SOPS triggered
indemnification. Docket No. 148 at 2-4. Plaintiffs argue
that “the Court simply overlooked Defendant's
admission regarding the applicability of the SOPs to the
Warehouse Agreement, the fact that the same were a
‘covenant' contained in the Agreement, and how the
combined language of sections 3.17(a) and 4.05 apply in light
of that admission.” Docket No. 148 at 3.
argument reads too much into defendant's statements.
Defendant's admission that the SOPS were an operating
procedure that applied to the packaging of pallet doors is
not an admission that the SOPS define the standard of care
under the Warehouse Agreement. As the Court previously found,
on the summary judgment record, there was no basis to
determine the appropriate standard of care. Docket No. 140 at
16. Likewise, defendant's understanding that the SOPS
defined how Unique expected the doors to be packaged is not
an admission that the SOPS are a “covenant” under
the Warehouse Agreement. Moreover, Section 4.05 incorporates
by reference the “current” SOPS that are
“set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto, ” not
all SOPS. Docket No. 105-1 at 9. Exhibit D to the Warehouse
Agreement, which is incorporated, is blank. Id. at
21. Thus, this incorporation by reference does not show that
the later-created August 2012 SOPS, which plaintiffs seek to
rely on, were a “covenant” contained in the
Warehouse Agreement. Section 3.17 makes no reference to the
SOPS, and neither defendant's statement nor Section 4.05
provide a basis to consider the August 2012 SOPS one of the
“covenants contained in [the Warehouse]
Agreement.” Id. at 8.
it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment on Contractual
Indemnity Claim [Docket No. 142] is DENIED.
Plaintiffs do not explain how, as a
procedural matter, the Court could use a statement in
defendant's response as a basis for reconsidering the
denial of summary judgment.
Plaintiffs also argue that the language
in Section 4.05 relieving NGL from any liability for
following the SOPS shows that they are a covenant. Docket No.
148 at 5. As the Court noted in its order denying summary
judgment, there are several problems with this
interpretation, which plaintiff's ...