United States District Court, D. Colorado
IRA S. JAFFREY, M.D., Plaintiff,
PORTERCARE ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant.
Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court on Defendant PorterCare
Adventist Health System's (“PorterCare” or
“Defendant”) Motion to Reconsider (the
“Motion”). [#60, filed June 9, 2017]. The
undersigned considers the Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(c) and the Order Referring Case dated December 9, 2015
[#11]. The court concludes that oral argument will not
materially assist in the resolution of this matter.
Accordingly, upon careful review of the Parties'
briefing, the entire case file, and applicable law, the
Motion is DENIED.
court has discussed in detail this action's background in
previous rulings, see, e.g., [#46], and discusses it
here only as it pertains to the pending Motion. Plaintiff Ira
S. Jaffrey (“Plaintiff” or “Dr.
Jaffrey”) initiated this action on October 16, 2015, at
the age of seventy-six (76). [#1]. Plaintiff, a Colorado
licensed physician and board certified oncologist, began
working as a part-time (“locum tenens”)
oncologist at Defendant's facility, Mile High Oncology
(“MHO”), in April 2014. [Id. at
¶¶ 4, 9]. However, around July 2014, the employment
relationship soured and Defendant terminated Plaintiff on or
about July 24, 2014. [Id. at ¶¶ 5- 11].
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him
because of his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA” or
“Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
(Claim I). [Id. at ¶ 1, 20]. Plaintiff also
brings common-law claims for breach of contract (Claim II)
and promissory estoppel (Claim III) against Defendant.
[Id. at ¶¶ 21-24].
September 9, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment. [#31]. On November 30, 2016, the court held a
motion hearing and took the Motion for the Summary Judgment
under advisement. [#41]. With leave of court, both parties
filed supplements to their briefing on December 9, 2016.
See [#44; #45].
April 4, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [#46].
Specifically, the court held that genuine issues of material
fact precluded summary judgment as to Claims I and III, and
granted summary judgment in Defendant's favor as to Claim
II only to the extent it alleged a breach of contract claim
predicated on the unsigned employment agreement.
[Id.]. Thus, Claims I and III remained in their
entirety for trial, and Claim II remained to the extent it
alleged a breach of contract claim predicated on the breach
of an oral promise to extend Plaintiff's locum
tenens employment with Defendant. [Id.].
5, 2017, the undersigned held a Final Pretrial Conference,
setting the remaining claims for a four-day jury trial to
commence on February 26, 2018. [#57]. The court has since
entered a Final Pretrial Order and Trial Preparation Order.
filed the instant Motion of June 9, 2017. [#60]. Defendant
moves for reconsideration of the court's Memorandum
Opinion and Order (“Order”) granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment
pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. [Id.]. Defendant contends that the court
misapprehended the facts and the controlling case law as to
all three of Plaintiff's claims, and seeks summary
judgment in its favor as to Claims I-III. [Id. at
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for
a motion for reconsideration. Because Defendant seeks
reconsideration of a non-final order, its Motion “falls
within a court's plenary power to revisit and amend
interlocutory orders as justice requires.” United
Fire & Cas. Co. v. Boulder Plaza Residential, LLC,
No. 06-cv-00037-PAB-CBS, 2010 WL 420046, at *3 (D. Colo. Feb.
1, 2010); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)
(“[A]ny order or other decision, however designated,
that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and
liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the
action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised
at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all
the claims and all the parties' rights and
liabilities.”). Courts in this district have applied
different standards on motions for reconsideration of
non-final orders. See United Fire & Cas. Co.,
2010 WL 420046, at *3 (listing cases applying Rule 59(e)
standard, Rule 60(b) standard, and “law of the
case” standard). But as a general principle, courts may
grant motions to reconsider where there is “(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.” Servants of
the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir.
2000). A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue for a
party to reargue issues by rehashing facts and arguments
already addressed or available, yet neglected, in the
original proceeding. See id.; Van Skiver v.
United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991).
moves for reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure that provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or
its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: . . .
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Motions under Rule 60(b)(6) must be
made within a reasonable time period. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c).
Again, the rule does not permit a rehashing of the facts or
arguments previously addressed by the court. See Pyeatt
v. Does, 19 F. App'x 785, 788 (10th Cir. 2001)
(explaining that “denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion is
not an abuse of discretion where the motion basically
revisits, albeit in somewhat different forms, the same issues
already addressed and dismissed by the court.”
(internal quotations and citations omitted)). Rather, Rule
60(b)(6) permits relief for “any other reason
justifying relief.” While characterized by the Tenth
Circuit as a “grand reservoir of equitable power to do
justice in a particular case, ” this subsection only
affords relief in extraordinary situations, when such action
is necessary to accomplish justice. F.D.I.C. v. Union