Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01292-CMA-SKC
10-13-2021
DEANNA ROSS, ARMANDO ROSS, and JASON ROSS, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL MARTINEZ, in his official capacity, JOSEPH LUKOW, in his official capacity, and EZEKIEL CISNEROS, in his individual and official capacity, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Robert Pino's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order of Dismissal “Without Prejudice” (Doc. #62). Pino argues that the Court erred by dismissing some of the claims against him without prejudice rather than with prejudice. The Motion is denied for the following reasons.
“A motion to reconsider must be made upon grounds other than a mere disagreement with the court's decision and must do more than rehash a party's former arguments that were rejected by the court.” Artificial Nail Techs., Inc. v. Flowering Scents, LLC, No. 2:06CV609DAK, 2007 WL 3254744, at *2 (D. Utah Nov. 2, 2007); see also Vreeland v. Huss, No. 118CV00303PABSKC, 2020 WL 3447768, at *2 (D. Colo. June 24, 2020) (quoting Artificial Nail Techs.). Motions for reconsideration are generally appropriate only when there is (1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new evidence previously unavailable; or (3) a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Pino has failed to demonstrate any of these circumstances.
Defendant spends the majority of his Motion either rehashing arguments he made in his dismissal motion or raising new arguments that he could have raised in his reply but chose not to. (Compare, e.g., Doc. # 62, pp. 4-7 with Doc. # 20, pp. 12-18 and Doc. # 51). He has failed to point to any change in the controlling law, any new evidence previously unavailable, or any “clear error” in the Court's prior order. Rather, his Motion is based on “a mere disagreement with the court's decision.” Artificial Nail Techs., 2007 WL 3254744, at *2. This is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration of the Court's prior order, and the Motion for Reconsideration must therefore fail. Servants of the Paraclete 204 F.3d at 1012.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Robert Pino's Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order of Dismissal “Without Prejudice” (Doc. #62) is DENIED.