Skyline Potato Company v. Rogers Brothers Farms, Inc.

Filing 52

AMENDED ORDER re: 51 Order on Motion for Reconsideration and Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge William J. Martinez on 12/1/2011. (ervsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge William J. Martínez
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02353-WJM-KLM
SKYLINE POTATO COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROGERS BROTHERS FARMS, INC.,
Defendant.

AMENDED1 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
CLARIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is Plaintiff Skyline Potato Company’s Motion for
Reconsideration and Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 46) (the “Motion”). In its Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 44) (the “Order”), this Court in relevant part determined as follows:
[T]he Court finds that Skyline was acting on behalf of [Defendant] Rogers
Brothers when it sorted, packaged, and delivered for sale the entire shed
of potatoes. The Court further finds that the parties had a single, consistent
relationship—that of grower/growers’ agent—with respect to the entire
contract. Because Skyline was acting as a growers’ agent as to the entire
contract, Rogers has met its burden of showing by preponderance of the
evidence that its informal complaint was timely filed with the Secretary.
Order at 14-15. It is this determination Plaintiff contends was both erroneous and in
need of further clarification, at least in regards to the rate of payment applicable to the

1

The original Order issued on November 30, 2011 inadvertently referred to the wrong
party as the movant. This Amended Order simply corrects that error and makes clear that
Plaintiff is the movant.

agreement between the parties. Motion, passim. In its response (ECF No. 48, the
“Response”), Defendant contends that the Motion should be denied because it presents
issues already addressed and ruled upon by the Court, and there is no ambiguity in the
Order necessitating clarification. Response at 2-5. The Court agrees with Defendant
and for the following reasons denies the Motion.
Where, as here, final judgment has not been entered, a trial court retains the
power under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to reconsider and modify its interlocutory orders.
Riggs v. Scrivner, Inc., 927 F.2d 1146, 1148 (10th Cir. 1991). In this circuit, 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. Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir. 2000). “A motion to reconsider should be denied unless it clearly
demonstrates manifest error of law or fact or presents newly discovered evidence."
National Business Brokers, Ltd. v. Jim Williamson Products, Inc., 115 F.Supp.2d 1250,
1256 (D. Colo. 2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has made it abundantly clear that a motion for reconsideration
is not a vehicle for a losing party to revisit issues already addressed. Does, 204 F.3d at
1012. Absent extraordinary circumstances, arguments that could have been raised in
the original briefing on the dispute in question may not be made in a motion for
reconsideration. Id. Because the conditions that justify granting a motion to reconsider
are rarely present, such motions are disfavored and should be equally rare. Bank of
Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir. 1990).

-2-

In its Motion, Plaintiff does not claim there has been any intervening change in
the controlling law, nor does it come forward with any new evidence previously
unavailable to it at the time it filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. All of the
arguments and contentions set forth in the Motion were available to Plaintiff previously
and were fully considered and addressed by the Court in its Order. Finally, Plaintiff has
failed to show that the Court fundamentally misapprehended any of its summary
judgment arguments, or that the Court’s prior ruling was so clearly erroneous that
without the reconsidered relief requested in the Motion it would suffer a manifest
injustice. As a consequence, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that
reconsideration of its Order is in these circumstances warranted.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has failed to show any necessity for this Court
to “clarify” its Order, on the rate of payment issue or otherwise. The Court has carefully
reviewed its Order and finds that the factual findings, legal analysis and conclusions
contained therein, while possibly not a paradigm of learned erudition, are nonetheless
sufficiently clear and understandable such that further “clarification” of its Order is
neither necessary or even advisable at this juncture of the proceedings.
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff Skyline Potato Company’s Motion for
Reconsideration and Clarification of Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment is
hereby DENIED.
Dated this 1st day of December, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

William J. Martínez
United States District Judge
-3-