Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-01638-CMA-SKC
01-12-2023
ELET VALENTINE, Plaintiff, v. JAMES RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and, RASIER, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Elet Valentine's “Objection[s] and Request[s] for Reconsideration” (Docs. ## 314-15), as well as her “Request for Status Update” (Doc. # 327.) For the following reasons, the requests for reconsideration are denied and the request for status update is denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates its previous recitation of the background of this case as stated in its Orders Adopting and Affirming the Recommendations of Magistrate Judge S. Kato Crews (Docs. ## 310-11.) On August 23, 2022, the Court adopted and affirmed Magistrate Judge Crews' recommendations to grant Defendants James River Insurance Company's (“James River”), Uber Technologies, Incorporated's (“Uber”), and Rasier, LLC's (collectively “Defendants”) Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. ## 310-11.) The Court reviewed the record, relevant briefing, and Ms. Valentine's Objections to Judge Crews' Recommendations. (Doc. # 310 at 5; Doc. # 311 at 5.) Applying a de novo standard, the Court concluded Judge Crews was correct in determining that no genuine dispute as to a material fact existed and Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Doc. # 310 at 6; Doc. # 311 at 6.)
Ms. Valentine now seeks reconsideration of the Court's two August 23, 2022 Orders pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. (Doc. ## 314-15.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 59
Under Rule 59(e), a party may request alteration or amendment of the judgment. Grounds warranting a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) 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.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Such a motion is therefore “appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.” Id. Rule 59(e) “permits a court to alter or amend a judgment, but it ‘may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.'” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1, at 127-28 (2d ed. 1995)).
The grounds warranting reconsideration are limited and occur only in “exceptional situation[s].” Proctor & Gamble v. Haugen, 222 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991); see also Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012 (“Absent extraordinary circumstances . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed.”). In addition, “arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration are not properly before the Court and generally need not be addressed.” O'Rourke v. Dominion Voting Sys. Inc., No. 20-cv-03747-NRN, 2021 WL 5548129, at *1 (D. Colo. 2021)).
B. CONSTRUCTION OF PRO SE PLEADINGS
The Court must construe pro-se pleadings liberally. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). In other words, “if the if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories . . . or his unfamiliarity with the pleading requirements.” Id. However, the Court should not act as a pro se litigant's advocate, and it may not “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir.1997).
III. ANALYSIS
Ms. Valentine's requests for reconsideration regarding Uber and Raiser's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 315) is nearly identical to her request for reconsideration regarding James River's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. ## 314, 323) with the addition of two arguments that pertains solely to her claims against Uber and Raiser (Doc. # 315 at 24-28, 31-44.) Therefore, the Court will analyze the two requests for reconsideration simultaneously. In neither request has Ms. Valentine presented a proper basis for reconsideration.
A. CHANGE IN LAW OR NEW EVIDENCE
Ms. Valentine does not point to new evidence or a change in the controlling law. Rather, Ms. Valentine attempts to make arguments based on case law which predates the Court's orders and evidence that was available to her when Defendants' summary judgment motions were pending. (Doc. # 314 at 2; Doc. # 315 at 2.) Ms. Valentine argues that her requests for reconsideration present “new evidence” in the form of “case law that [sic] by the Colorado Supreme Court ruling regarding contract interpretation.” (Doc. # 314 at 2; Doc. # 315 at 2, 29-30, 45; Doc. # 323 at 5, 20, 24-26.) Ms. Valentine specifically points to Schultz v. GEICO Casualty Co., 429 P.3d 844 (Colo. 2018), which she contends is “intervening and controlling case law.” (Doc. # 315 at 18-19; Doc. 323 at 5, 20, 24-26.)
This argument fails for multiple reasons. First, Schultz was published in November 2018, 19 months before Ms. Valentine filed her claim, and more than 3 years before Judge Crews issued his Recommendation that James River's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. See (Docs. ## 1, 300); Schultz, 429 P.3d at 844. Thus, Schultz is neither new nor intervening case law. Second, the remainder of Ms. Valentine's argument regarding the interpretation of the insurance policy at issue is repetitive of previously made, and dismissed, arguments. See (Doc. # 306 at 7-11, 1722, 26-38, 40; Doc. # 311 at 6); see also generally (Doc. # 247.) A motion to reconsider is not an appropriate avenue to rehash previously made arguments. Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243; see also Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
B. CLEAR ERROR OR MANIFEST INJUSTICE
In her requests for reconsideration Ms. Valentine has not presented a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Rather, the remainder of Ms. Valentine's arguments against both James River, Uber, and Rasier either repeat arguments previously made before this Court, or present new arguments for the first time. Neither type of argument is appropriate for a motion to reconsider. O'Rourke, 2021 WL 5548129, at *1.
As it pertains to James River, Ms. Bowling's request for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment in favor of James River presents new arguments for the first time. These new arguments are that that the Court erred in (1) using rejected settlement offers as evidence because such offers can only be used to determine costs, and (2) terminating the case based on the unaccepted offers because such offers are considered withdrawn after 14 days. (Doc. # 314 at 10-11, 24.) However, Ms. Valentine did not raise these arguments in either her Response (Doc. # 246) to James River's Motion for Summary Judgement, or in her Objections (Doc. # 306) to Judge Crews' Recommendation that summary judgment be granted in James River's favor. “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 1012. Ms. Valentine has not presented extraordinary circumstances for the Court to consider her new arguments, and the Court declines to do so.
In her request for reconsideration of the grant of summary judgment in favor of Uber and Rasier (Doc. # 315), Ms. Valentine makes two arguments that pertain solely to her claims against these Defendants. First, Ms. Valentine argues that her claims against Uber and Rasier were not ripe for determination due to unresolved discovery issues. (Doc. # 315 at 24-26.) However, Ms. Valentine raised these alleged discovery disputes in her Objections (Doc. # 308 at 12, 19) to Judge Crews' Recommendation that summary judgment be granted in Uber and Rasier's favor. Second, Ms. Valentine argues that she presented a cognizable “non-delegable doctrine claim.” (Doc. # 315 at 42-44.) This argument was previously raised both in Ms. Valentine's Response to Uber and Raiser's Motion for Summary Judgment, and in her Objection to Judge Crews' Recommendation. (Doc. # 298 at 10-12; Doc. # 308 at 31-41.) Both arguments were considered and dismissed by this Court when Judge Crews' Recommendation was adopted and affirmed. (Doc. # 310 at 5-6). Ms. Valentine has the right, which she has exercised, to seek review of the Court's Order by filing an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals to the Tenth Circuit. However, as stated above, requests for reconsideration are not the appropriate vehicle to reassert previously made arguments. Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243; see also Servants of the Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Two federal judges of this Court have evaluated Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment and determined that Defendants demonstrated that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In so doing, the Court reviewed Ms. Valentine's arguments in response to the motions and her objections to Judge Crews' Recommendations. (Docs. ## 310-11.) The Court finds no clear error or manifest injustice in its two August 23, 2022 Orders Adopting and Affirming the Recommendations that Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment be granted. Accordingly, the Court will not revisit factual and legal issues it has already addressed or analyze new arguments raised for the first time in Ms. Valentine's post-judgment motions. See Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows:
• Plaintiff Elet Valentine's “Objection[s] and Request[s] for Reconsideration” (Docs. ## 314-15) are DENIED; and
• as the Court has now ruled on her requests for reconsideration, Plaintiff Elet Valentine's “Request for Status Update” (Doc. # 327) is DENIED AS MOOT. DATED: January 12, 2023.