Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 267

ORDER: The Plaintiff's Response for Reconsideration on All Charges...[# 229 ] filed April 17, 2013, is DENIED; the Plaintiffs Motion to the Court To Make a Decision on Summery [sic] of Judgment or a Jury Trial [# 243 ] filed June 13, 2013, is DE NIED; the Plaintiff Motion Under Rule D.C.Colo.LCivR 56.1 Summary Judgment... [# 246 ] filed July 1, 2013, is DENIED; the Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act...[# 256 ] filed July 18, 2013, is DENIED; the [Second] Motion To The C ourt Under the Freedom of Information Act... [# 257 ] filed July 18. 2013, is DENIED; the Motion for Magistrate Mix and Judge Blackburn To Reconsideration...[# 258 ] filed July 18, 2013, is DENIED; the Motion To Master Judge Krieger... [# 260 ] filed July 30, 2013, is DENIED; and the Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act...[# 261 ] filed July 30. 2013, is DENIED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/20/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00968-REB-KLM
KATHLEEN CHYTKA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WRIGHT TREE SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) Plaintiff Response for
Reconsideration on All Charges . . .1 [#229]2 filed April 17, 2013; (2) Plaintiff’s
Motion to the Court To Make a Decision on Summery [sic] of Judgment or a Jury
Trial [#243] filed June 13, 2013; (3) Plaintiff Motion Under Rule D.C.Colo.LCivR 56.1
Summary Judgment . . . [#246] filed July 1, 2013; (4) Motion To The Court Under the
Freedom of Information Act . . . [#256] filed July 18. 2013; (5) [Second] Motion To
The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act . . . [#257] filed July 18. 2013; (6)
Motion for Magistrate Mix and Judge Blackburn To Reconsideration . . .[#258] filed
July 18, 2013; (7) Motion To Master Judge Krieger . . . [#260] filed July 30, 2013; and
(8) Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act . . . [#261] filed July

1
2

In an effort to preserve space, I abbreviate some of the titles of the plaintiff’s motions.

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

30. 2013. The parties filed responses and replies addressing these motions [#240,
#249, #259, #262, and #263]. I deny the motions.
In the motions docketed as [#229, #258, and #261], the plaintiff seeks
reconsideration of previous rulings by the court. The bases for granting reconsideration
are extremely 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
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). In her motions, the plaintiff does not establish any of these bases for
reconsideration. Therefore, the motions for reconsideration [#229, #258, and #261] are
denied.
In the motions docketed as [#243 & #246], the plaintiff seeks a decision on
motions for summary judgment or a jury trial. All of the motions for summary judgment
filed previously in this case have been resolved. One claim remains pending in this
case. Currently, it has yet to be determined whether or not a jury trial on this claim is
necessary. Given these circumstances, the plaintiff’s motions for decision on summary
judgment or jury trial are denied.
In the motions docketed as [#256 & #257], the plaintiff seeks “all information on
this case including and not limited to any and all meetings the court had with the
Defendants Attorneys with dates and time including Phone conversation.” Motion
[#256], p. 1 (capitalization in original). All of the motions, hearings, evidence, and other
2

proceedings in this case are a matter of public record. The plaintiff has ready access to
the information she seeks in the record of this case. The motions docketed as [#256 &
#257] are denied.
Finally, in the motion docketed as [#260], the plaintiff asks Chief United States
District Judge Marcia S. Krieger to consider this case. This case has been assigned to
me and to United States Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix under the Local Rules of
Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Colorado - Civil. The
plaintiff does not establish any basis for a re-assignment of this case to a different
district judge. The motion docketed as [#260] is denied.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Plaintiff Response for Reconsideration on All Charges . . .
[#229] filed April 17, 2013, is DENIED;
2. That the Plaintiff’s Motion to the Court To Make a Decision on Summery
[sic] of Judgment or a Jury Trial [#243] filed June 13, 2013, is DENIED;
3. That the Plaintiff Motion Under Rule D.C.Colo.LCivR 56.1 Summary
Judgment . . . [#246] filed July 1, 2013, is DENIED;
4. That the Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act . . .
[#256] filed July 18. 2013, is DENIED;
5. That the [Second] Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information
Act . . . [#257] filed July 18. 2013, is DENIED;
6. That the Motion for Magistrate Mix and Judge Blackburn To
Reconsideration . . .[#258] filed July 18, 2013, is DENIED;
7. That the Motion To Master Judge Krieger . . . [#260] filed July 30, 2013, is

3

DENIED; and
8. That the Motion To The Court Under the Freedom of Information Act . . .
[#261] filed July 30. 2013, is DENIED.
Dated August 20, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

4