Harshbarger et al v. Stevens et al

Filing 56

ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration 52 , filed 3/11/2011, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 5/10/2011.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01297-REB-KLM
ED HARSHBARGER, JR.,
RONALD HERBER,
VIRGIL JONES, and
THE DENVER TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION NO. 49, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
OF AMERICA LOCAL NO. 14705,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LESTER E. STEVENS, JR.,
THE DENVER NEWSPAPER GUILD-CWA, LOCAL NO. 37074 OF THE
COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, and
THE DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY, LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration [#52]1 filed
March 11, 2011. I deny the motion.
Because plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment, it is
properly considered under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Nevertheless, the bases for granting a
motion under Rule 59(e) are 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
1

“[#52]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific
paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention
throughout this order.

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).
None of these circumstances pertains here. Plaintiffs use their motion to raise
arguments regarding impairment of their right to vote that were not previously
articulated in the copious briefing that accompanied the original motions. A motion for
reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to advance new and improved
arguments that were clearly implicated by the original motion. Plaintiffs also devote a
substantial portion of their motion to the concept of prudential standing, despite the fact
that the dismissal was premised primarily on the related, but conceptually distinct, issue
of ripeness. In sum, I find defendants’ motion to constitute little more than a
disagreement with my prior analysis. Accordingly, their motion must be denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
[#52], filed March 11, 2011, is DENIED.
Dated May 10, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2