Estate of Elias Santistevan et al v. Denver, Colorado, The City and County of et al

Filing 90

ORDER denying 85 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Order Overruling Objections, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 7/19/10.(lyg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Case No. 08-cv-01669-REB-MJW ESTATE OF ELIAS SANTISTEVAN, by Chanell Santistevan as personal representative, ESTATE OF DEION SANTISTEVAN, by Chanell Santistevan as personal representative, and CHANELL SANTISTEVAN, individually, Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO, et al., Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS Blackburn, J. The matter before me is Plaintiff's (sic) Motion To Reconsider Ruling Costs [sic] [#85] filed July 10, 2010. I deny the motion. The bases for granting reconsideration are extremely limited: Grounds warranting a motion to reconsider 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. Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Plaintiffs offer nothing suggesting that any of these factors are implicated in this case. More particularly, plaintiffs failed to file a response to defendants' motion to reconsider the costs originally taxed by the Clerk of the Court. Their motion does not

acknowledge, much less seek to explain or excuse, this lapse. Having failed in the first instance to present their position in a timely filed response, plaintiffs cannot now ask the court to "reconsider" arguments that should have been raised in the appropriate time and manner. THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's (sic) Motion To Reconsider Ruling Costs [sic] [#85] filed July 10, 2010, is DENIED. Dated July 19, 2010, at Denver, Colorado. BY THE COURT:

2