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.

Buhendwa v. Regional Transportation District

United States District Court, D. Colorado

June 28, 2018

MADINA BUHENDWA, Plaintiff,
v.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT, University Based Pass/CU Student Bus Pass; 15 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, in their official capacity; JAMES A. STADLER, in his official capacity; STEPHEN P. SCHMITZ, in his official capacity; UNKNOWN DRIVER, in his official capacity; BENJAMIN NORMAN, in his official capacity; BILL JAMES; BARBARA DEADWYLER; ANGIE RIVERA-MULPIEDE; JEFF WALKER; CLAUDIA FOLSKA; TOM TOBIASSEN; GARY LASATER; KENT BAYLEY; JUDY LUBOW; LARRY HOY; PAUL DANIEL SOLAMO; LORRAINE ANDERSON; NATALIE MENTEN; BRUCE DOLTY; and CHARLES L. SISK, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on the following matters:

(1) “Amendment to the Motion to Object” (ECF No. 56);
(2) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such, a Request for Motion for Entry of Judgment 55(b)” (“Rule 55(b) Motion”) (ECF No. 57);[1]
(3) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such, a Request for Motion for Default Judgment 55(a)” (“Rule 55(a) Motion”) (ECF No. 58);
(4) “If the Following Motions Requires Petition or Approval from the Court, let this Motion Serves as One/Such, a Request for Either, Motion 50(a)(1)(B); 60(b)(2); 59(a); and Rule 36; 59(e)” (“Motion for Multiple Relief”) (ECF No. 59);
(5) “Motion for Rule 50 Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial 50(a)(1)(B)” (“Rule 50 Motion”) (ECF No. 60);
(6) “Motion Requesting Admission Rule 36” (“Rule 36 Motion”) (ECF No. 61);
(7) “Motion to Supplement the Record” (ECF No. 54); and
(8) “Affidavit not receiving orders” (ECF No. 64).

         The Court has considered these filings, the applicable law, the court record in this case, and the Order (ECF No. 62) issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit abating Plaintiff's appeal pending this Court's resolution of motions pending. Upon consideration of these matters, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court resolves the pending matters as follows.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Based on the date stamped on the eight pending motions/matters, six (ECF Nos. 56-61) were received by the Clerk's Office prior to or on the date of the entry of Final Judgment. However, this Court did not receive these six matters for consideration or order that they be docketed until after Final Judgment had entered and an appeal had been filed. The Tenth Circuit has now abated Plaintiff's appeal pending this Court's “resolution of the pending postjudgment motions.” (ECF No. 62, page 2.) Accordingly, the Court will construe the six motions as postjudgment motions under Fed. R. Civ. P 59(e) (motion to alter or amend judgment).[2] And, under Rule 59(e), “relief is available in limited circumstances, including ‘(1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) when new evidence previously was unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'” Hayes Family Tr. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 845 F.3d 997, 1004 (10th Cir. 2017) (brackets omitted) (quoting Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)).

         II. THE PENDING “POSTJUDGMENT” MOTIONS

         A. The Amendment to the Motion to Object

         Plaintiff filed a Motion to Object (ECF No. 35), which the Court considered in its Order of January 29, 2018 (ECF No. 38). In that Order, the Court found the Motion to Object failed to show that filing restrictions should not enter. The Court now considers Plaintiff's Amendment to the Motion to Object, which, although unclear, appears to argue that dismissal of the case (or of the unserved defendants) was not appropriate, and that default or judgment as a matter of law should enter. Having now considered these additional arguments, most of which appear to rely on matters which allegedly occurred in other cases Plaintiff previously filed against the RTD, the Court finds them insufficient to show any error in its January 18 or 29, 2018 Order and resulting Final Judgment, or any basis for granting relief.

         B. The ...


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.