From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DataLever Corp. v. Sugg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 15, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02897-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. May. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02897-CMA-CBS

05-15-2012

DATALEVER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD SUGG, Defendant.


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


Summaries of

DataLever Corp. v. Sugg

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 15, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02897-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. May. 15, 2012)
Case details for

DataLever Corp. v. Sugg

Case Details

Full title:DATALEVER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. EDWARD SUGG…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 15, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02897-CMA-CBS (D. Colo. May. 15, 2012)