Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.
Filing
147
ORDER; Plaintiff's 144 Motion to the Court Not to Strick My Book Of Summery of Judge Ment, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 11/13/2012.(klmcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court Not to Strick My
Book of Summery of Judge Ment [sic] [Docket No. 144; Filed November 7, 2012] (the
“Motion”), which the Court interprets as a motion to reconsider its Order dated October 31,
2012 [#143].
On April 12, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this law suit alleging, among other causes of
action, discrimination in violation of Title VII. On May 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for
summary judgment [#81], and on August 16, 2012, Defendant filed its own motion for
summary judgment [#115]. As outlined in more detail in its October 31, 2012 Order, the
Court provided Plaintiff with multiple opportunities to provide compliant versions of her
briefings on the motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to take advantage of these
opportunities.
Plaintiff here seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order striking her late-filed
evidence in support of her motion for summary judgment. A motion for reconsideration “is
1
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.” 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.
First, Plaintiff presents no argument in her Motion [#144] regarding “an intervening
change in the controlling law.” Brumark Corp. 57 F.3d at 944. Second, Plaintiff makes no
assertion that the evidence she provides is new and was previously unavailable for her to
submit during the briefing schedule set by the Court. Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at
1012. In fact, every indication is that the evidence that Plaintiff wishes the Court to
examine has long been available to Plaintiff but she simply chose not to file it in connection
with the motions for summary judgment. Third, Plaintiff has shown neither that the Court
has made a “clear error” nor that the Court’s Order must be modified to “prevent manifest
injustice.” Brumark Corp. 57 F.3d at 944. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#144] is DENIED.
Dated: November 13, 2012
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?