Giuffre v. Marys Lake Lodge, LLC

Filing 112

ORDER denying 110 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint[#104] on or before 5/10/12, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/30/12.(cmacd )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00028-PAB-KLM
DARREN GIUFFRE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARYS LAKE LODGE, LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, and
RAMS HORN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, doing business as Marys Lake Lodge,
a Colorado Limited Liability Company,
Consol Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s April 23, 2012 Order [Doc. No. 103] [Docket No. 110; Filed April 27, 2012] (the
“Motion”). Defendants ask the Court to reconsider its Order issued April 23, 2012 [#103],
reject the First Amended Class Action Complaint [#104], and permit Plaintiff to amend his
allegations against only Defendant Ram’s Horn.
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 limited
to the following: “(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.”
1

Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark, 57
F.3d at 948). Therefore, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate [only] where the court has
misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law.” Id.
Defendants’ primary objection to the Court’s April 23, 2012 Order is that Defendant
Marys Lake Lodge will suffer prejudice if Plaintiff is allowed to amend his allegations as to
Marys Lake Lodge at this stage of the proceeding. The Court rejects this argument. As
explained in the April 23, 2012 Order, the District Judge granted Defendant Marys Lake
Lodge’s Motion to Consolidate on February 21, 2012, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and
D.C.COLO.LCivR 42.1 [#62]. The District Judge determined that “[t]his case and Case No.
12-cv-00377-WJM involve identical claims relying upon the same legal and factual basis
in both cases,” thus the cases warranted consolidation. Id. at 2. Accordingly, Defendant
Ram’s Horn was added to this action as a consolidated defendant.
Pursuant to the Tenth Circuit’s instruction regarding the effect of consolidation, this
Court determined that here, the consolidation on the basis of identical claims arising from
the same factual and legal circumstances resulted in the merger of the two separate
matters into one action. [#103] at 3. Thus, accepting an amended complaint as to only one
of the named defendants would be improper. The Court, in its discretion and in the interest
of judicial efficiency, gave Plaintiff permission to file an amended complaint as to both
named Defendants, in the interests of justice and in consideration of the mid-litigation
consolidation. The Court has not misapprehended the facts, the law, or the parties’
positions in making this determination; therefore, reconsideration is unwarranted.1

1

In the Motion, Defendant Marys Lake Lodge indicates its belief that it is precluded from
moving to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint; however, after Plaintiff lodged the

2

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3), Defendants
shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s First Amended Class Action Complaint
[#104] on or before May 10, 2012.
Dated: April 30, 2012

First Amended Class Action Complaint, the Court issued a Minute Order instructing the parties to
file a joint status report on or before April 30, 2012, indicating what case management scheduling,
if any, is requested [#106]. The Court will thereafter consider setting new case management
deadlines in this matter, including a deadline for the filing of dispositive motions. In any event,
Defendants must answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Class Action Complaint on or
before the date indicated above.

3