United States District Court, D. Colorado
MAKEEN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, as trustee for THE MAKEEN FAMILY CHILDRENS TRUST, and AKEEM MAKEEN, Plaintiffs,
STATE OF COLORADO; JUDGE MICHAEL JAMES VALLEJOS; JUDGE JENNIFER TORRINGTON; MAX A. MINNIG, JR. & ASSOCIATES, LLC; and MAX A. MINNIG, JR., individually and in his official capacity as agent for GEORGE E. HAILEY, Defendants.
RAYMOND P. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Makeen Investment
Group, LLC's (“MIG”), as Trustee of the
Makeen Family Children's Trust, “Reconsideration of
the Court's Order of November 26, 2018” (the
“Motion”) (ECF No. 150). Only State Defendants
have filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 151.) The
matter is ripe for resolution.
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)
(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). In this case, however, final
judgment has entered; therefore, reconsideration may not be
had. For this reason alone, MIG's Motion may be denied.
Nonetheless, State Defendants' Response relies on Rule
59(e) to support rejection of the Motion. Thus, the Court
considers the Motion accordingly.
NO RELIEF UNDER RULE 59(e)
for granting a Rule 59(e) motion 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.'” Monge v. RG
Petro-Mach. (Grp.) Co., 701 F.3d 598, 611 (10th Cir.
2012) (quoting Somerlott v. Cherokee Nation Distributors,
Inc., 686 F.3d 1144, 1153 (10th Cir. 2012)). It is not a
vehicle “to reargue an issue previously addressed by
the court when the motion merely advances new arguments, or
supporting facts which were available at the time of the
original motion.” Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Instead,
such motion “is appropriate where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the
controlling law.” Id.; see also Barber ex
rel. Barber v. Colo. Dep't of Rev., 562 F.3d 1222,
1228 (10th Cir. 2009) (same). It “cannot be used to
expand a judgment to encompass new issues which could have
been raised prior to issuance of the judgment.”
Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man, Inc., 822 F.3d
524, 536 (10th Cir. 2016) (quotation marks and citation
MIG argues the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
apply because there is no final judgment in the state court
case, attaching as Exhibit 1 an order of the Colorado Court
of Appeals dated July 20, 2017 to establish the same. This
argument fails for at least three reasons. First, MIG could
have raised that argument before the Magistrate Judge; it did
not. Instead, the only argument MIG raised was a single
sentence that “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
does not apply to MIG as they were not a party in the second
trial, nor are they losers.” (ECF No. 110, p. 5.)
Second, MIG could have raised that argument in any objection
to the Recommendation; it did not. Indeed, MIG failed to file
any objection at all. Thus, the argument will not be
considered now. Finally, even if the Court were persuaded to
consider this argument and Exhibit 1, which it is not,
Plaintiffs evidence that certain matters in the state court
case was allegedly not final as of July 20, 2017, fails to
establish that state court case was not final when the case
now before the Court was filed on November 17, 2017. See
Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1032 & n.2 (10th
Cir. 2006) (“Under Exxon Mobil, Rooker-Feldman
applies only to suits filed after state proceedings are
final.”). Accordingly, the Court rejects MIG's
arguments and finds no basis for relief.
on the foregoing, it is ORDERED that
Plaintiff Makeen Investment Group, LLC's, as Trustee of
the Makeen Family Children's Trust,
“Reconsideration of the Court's Order of November
26, 2018” (ECF No. 150) is DENIED. DATED this 26th day
of June, 2019.
Based on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Colombia Ct. of
Appeals v. Feldman,460 ...