Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02897-CMA-CBS
05-15-2012
Judge Christine M. Arguello
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Edward Sugg's Motion for Reconsideration of Order or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13). In this motion, Defendant requests that the Court reconsider its March 29, 2012 Order (Doc. # 11) denying his motion to stay the case on Colorado River grounds.
The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). None of these grounds provide a basis for reconsideration of the Court's March 29, 2012 Order.
The Court denied Defendant's motion to stay because it found that the instant case was not parallel to a case filed in Virginia state court between the same parties. (Id. at 5-7.) After Defendant's motion was fully briefed and ripe for review, but before the Court had ruled, Plaintiff filed counterclaims in the Virginia action that were essentially the same as the claims filed in this action. Neither party bothered to inform the Court of this development, despite its obvious importance. Now, after the Court has already ruled, Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its ruling. If the filing of the counterclaims in the Virginia action was relevant to Defendant's motion to stay (as Defendant now asserts), then Defendant should have brought them to the Court's attention before the Court expended effort to analyze the issues. See Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (motions for reconsiderations are not appropriate vehicle to "advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.").
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Reconsider (Doc. # 13) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
____________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge