United States District Court, D. Colorado
MAKEEN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC as Trustee of THE MAKEEN FAMILY CHILDRENS TRUST, and the MAKEEN FAMILY TRUST and AKEEM MAKEEN, Plaintiffs,
STATE OF COLORADO, MICHAEL JAMES VALLEJOS, ELIZABETH ANNE STARRS, ELIZABETH BEEBE VOLZ, MAX MINNIG, JR.& ASSOCIATES, LLC, and MAX A. MINNIG, JR, Defendants.
RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs'
“Reconsideration of the Court Order of April 3, 2019 to
Strike the Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed
Findings and Recommendations” (the
“Motion”) (ECF No. 23). The Motion was filed in
response to the Court's Minute Order (ECF No. 22)
striking as untimely Plaintiffs' Objection (ECF No. 21)
to the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The
Court had denied Plaintiff Makeen Investment Group, LLC's
(the “LLC”) motion for extension of time to file
any objection and granted Plaintiff Makeen an extension of
time but only until Friday, March 29, 2019. For the reasons
stated herein, after consideration of the Motion, the court
record, and the applicable rules and case law, the Court
DENIES the Motion.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no motion for
reconsideration.” Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d
543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). Nonetheless, “the court retains the power to
alter rulings until final judgment is entered on a
cause.” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Thompson
Theatres, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1980)
(emphasis added) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)).
“‘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.'” Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v.
Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1212 (10th
Cir. 2012) (quoting Servants of Paraclete v. Does,
204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000)). Such motions may not,
however, “merely advance new arguments” or
provide “supporting facts which were available at the
time of the original motion.” Servants of the
Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012; see also Matasantos
Comm. Corp. v. Applebee's Int'l, Inc., 245 F.3d
1203, 1209 n.2 (10th Cir. 2001) (“A motion for
reconsideration is not, however, an opportunity for the
losing party to raise new arguments that could have been
presented originally.”). “Absent extraordinary
circumstances, ... the basis for the second motion must not
have been available at the time the first motion was
filed.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at
case, Plaintiffs assert reconsideration is warranted but fail
to show the Court should do so. First, Plaintiffs fail to
address much less show that any ground for reconsideration is
Instead, Plaintiffs argue “excusable neglect or good
cause, ” but that is not the standard.
Plaintiffs' information which they currently present was
certainly available to them at the time their motion for
extension of time was filed. Moreover, the information
presented here is different from that presented before the
Court in Plaintiffs' motion to extension of time. There,
Plaintiffs argue both Plaintiffs needed additional
time due to their conclusory assertion of their alleged
illness. Here, Plaintiffs contend it was
counsel for Plaintiff LLC who was ill.Regardless, the
Court denied in whole or in part Plaintiffs' motion for
extension of time as they failed to show good cause; thus,
Plaintiffs' untimely Objection was stricken.
brings the Court to the third, and final, reason for denial
of the Motion. Plaintiffs assert they never saw or received
the Court's March 26, 2019, Minute Order denying their
Motion and that Mr. Makeen was “under the
impression” he had seven (7) days, until April 2, 2019,
to object. The Court finds the assertion that both Plaintiffs
failed to see or receive the Minute Order implausible.
Further, Plaintiffs offer no reason why they failed to check
the CM/ECF filing system to ascertain whether their motion
for extension of time was ruled upon. That would merely have
taken a few key strokes and clicks of a mouse. Instead, it
appears the parties (and counsel) assumed their motion for
extension of time would be granted. It is axiomatic that
parties should not assume - or presume - the Court will grant
a motion merely because it is presented for consideration. It
that Plaintiffs' “Reconsideration of the Court
Order of April 3, 2019 to Strike the Objection to the
Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and
Recommendations” (ECF No. 23) is DENIED.
 Mr. Makeen appears pro se but
he must nonetheless “follow the same rules of procedure
that govern other litigants.” Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.
2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Plaintiff LLC,
however, is represented by counsel. The Court also notes this
is a joint motion.
 The Motion again states that
“Plaintiffs have been sick” but, of course,
attorney Holden is ...