General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Chumley et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 62 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting Defendants' Second Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/25/11.(mnf, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01398-PAB-KLM
GENERAL STEEL DOMESTIC SALES, LLC, d/b/a GENERAL STEEL CORPORATION,
a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETHAN DANIEL CHUMLEY, individually, and
ATLANTIC BUILDING SYSTEMS, LLC, a Delaware corporation, doing business as
ARMSTRONG STEEL CORPORATION,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting
Defendants’ Second Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order [Docket No. 62; Filed April
19, 2011] (the “Motion”). On April 18, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ Second Motion
to Amend the Scheduling Order [Docket No. 57]. Minute Order [Docket No. 60]. Shortly
after the Court’s Order was entered, Plaintiff filed a Response [Docket No. 61] in opposition
to Defendants’ Motion [#57]. Plaintiff now asks that the Court reconsider its Order in light
of the arguments raised in the Response.
A motion for reconsideration “is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare
circumstances.” Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995).
It is well established in the Tenth Circuit that grounds for a motion to reconsider are
ordinarily limited to the following: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) new
-1-

evidence previously unavailable; and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing
Brumark, 57 F.3d at 948). Thus, a motion to reconsider is typically “appropriate [only]
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.” Id.
Here, Plaintiff contends that the Court misapprehended the likelihood that extending
case management deadlines and resetting the Final Pretrial Conference will cause it “to
suffer substantial prejudice.” Motion [#62] at 2. Plaintiff explains as follows: “Plaintiff has
learned through discovery and investigation in this case from Defendants’ former
employees that Defendants’ goal in this litigation is to delay trial and make as much money
as possible in the interim (through maximizing Defendants’ deceptive sales practices and
attacks on Plaintiff) and then either go out of business or file bankruptcy with their ill gotten
gains well hidden and/or spent.” Id.; see also id. at 3 (“[T]he Defendants have made it their
business to attack and harm the Plaintiff’s business operations, and the longer this case
takes to get to trial, the more prejudice Plaintiff will suffer.”).
The Court finds Plaintiff’s argument unavailing. Simply put, it is not unusual for one
party to have strong interests in seeing a case proceed to trial as quickly as possible while
another party has strong interests in advancing the case more slowly. The Court must
balance these competing interests while also ensuring the efficient use of its resources.
Complex case management schedules involving myriad deadlines do not serve the Court’s,
and the public’s, interest in judicial economy. Such schedules often lead to confusion and
result in the need for frequent Court action, both in the form of judicial orders when parties
-2-

miss deadlines and informal telephone and email contact with counsel. In this case,
Plaintiff advocates a more complicated case management schedule than that ordered by
the Court. Although the Court understands Plaintiff’s interest in seeing this case advance
rapidly, it has found good cause for the extension of deadlines requested by Defendants.
The Court notes Plaintiff’s position for the record, and it will be mindful of this position
should Defendants request further extensions of time in the future.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#62] is DENIED.

DATED: April 25, 2011 at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Kristen L. Mix
Kristen L. Mix
United States Magistrate Judge

-3-