Opinion
Case No. 2:03CV26DAK
May 12, 2004
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
This matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion To Reconsider, which asks this court to reconsider its April 29, 2004 Order granting Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment because there are material questions of fact in dispute and that this court should have reached a different result based on equity under Rupp v. Markgraf, 95 F.3d 936, 944 (10th Cir. 1996).
A motion for reconsideration is not specifically provided for in the rules of civil procedure. However, they are commonly considered pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a motion to alter or amend a judgment. "A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment should be granted only to correct manifest errors of law or to present newly discovered evidence." Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). Thus, the scope of Rule 59(e) is quite limited:
A party should not use a motion for reconsideration to reargue the: motion or present evidence that should have been raised before. Moreover, a party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and `recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party's burden. When a motion for reconsideration raises only a party's disagreement with a decision of the Court, that dispute "should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reargument under" [Rule 59(e)].NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos., 938 F. Supp. 248, 249-50 (D.NJ. 1996) (internal quotes omitted); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Greif, 906 F. Supp. 1446, 1456-57 (D. Kan. 1995)("A party cannot invoke Rule 59(e) to raise arguments or present evidence that should have been raised in the first instance or to rehash arguments previously considered and rejected by the court.").
In this case, Defendants argue that there are material issues of fact in dispute with respect to whether Lonnie Braithwaite and his company Premier Home Builders are the same entity and whether Premier was owed money on the date 4NExchange funds were used to purchase the cashier's check issued to the Harrisons. These facts were raised and analyzed in the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff provided documents and affidavits establishing that Braithwaite and Premier were one and the same. Plaintiff also provided documents and affidavits establishing that Premier was not owed any money on the date the cashier's check in question was issued.
When a party adequately supports its motion for summary judgment, the adverse party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but the adverse party's response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 257 (1986) (adverse party "must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment"). Anderson, 477 U.S. at 257.
Defendants argue that Paul Grant's deposition testimony stated that Premier was hired to do the remodeling and that Garth Harrison testified that Braithwaite was operating through Premier. None of these facts dispute Plaintiff's evidence that Braithwaite and Premier were one entity. The fact that Braithwaite signed a contract in his "representative capacity" also does not rebut Plaintiff's evidence. Defendants had an opportunity at the summary judgment stage to adequately rebut Plaintiff's evidence and this court concluded that they did not. No reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. Similarly, Defendants failed to rebut Plaintiff's evidence with respect to whether money was owing Braithwaite or Premier on the date the cashier's check was issued.
Defendants have not offered any new evidence or law in their motion to reconsider. Defendants must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision. Defendants' recapitulation of their arguments already considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry Defendants' burden on a motion to reconsider. A motion for reconsideration is an "inappropriate 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. Absent extraordinary circumstances, . . . the basis for the second motion must not have been available at the time the first motion was filed." Servants of the Paracletes v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Finally, Defendants' arguments with respect to the equities of the case and the court's analysis of Rupp are completely inconsistent with the motion to reconsider standard. This court fully analyzed Defendants' arguments at the summary judgment stage and provided its reasoning to the parties. Defendants attempt to argue additional information and arguments in support of its position that were clearly available at the time of the original briefing is inappropriate. Moreover, the additional arguments are not persuasive. Defendants disagreement with the court's analysis should be addressed in the regular appellate process. Therefore, Defendants' motion for reconsideration on these grounds is improper.
In conclusion, Defendants' motion does not demonstrate any manifest errors of law in the court's Order. Rather, Plaintiff's arguments consist of disagreements with the court's findings and conclusions and a rehashing of issues dealt with by the court. Plaintiff's have not demonstrated any issues on which the court misapprehended the facts or misunderstood Plaintiff's arguments. Plaintiff's disagreements with the court's Order are the type more properly raised on appeal than in a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden under Rule 59 and its Motion to Reconsideration is DENIED.