Chytka v. Wright Tree Service, Inc.

Filing 484

ORDER denying 481 Motion to Reopen Case ; denying 482 Motion to Reopen Case. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 9/21/2015.(mlace, )

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 CONCERNING MOTIONS TO REOPEN
Blackburn, J.
This matter is before me on the following: (1) the Motion To Add New Exhibit
Evidence and Reopen This Case Exhibit 2000A, 2000 B, 2000 C, 2000 D, 2000 E,
2000F 2000G A Pay Stubs from 10-11-2002 and 2-21-2003 and 7-4-2009 [#481]1 filed
May 26, 2015; and (2) the Motion To the Court for Status on Motion To Add New
Exhibit Evidence and Reopen This Case Exhibit 2000A, 2000 B, 2000 C, 2000 D,
2000 E, 2000F 2000G A Pay Stubs from 10-11-2002 and 2-21-2003 and 7-4-2009.
Filed on May 26, 2015. Or allow I Kathleen Chytka my Summery of Judgment
Relief. To be Answered by 6-22-2015. [#482] filed June 18, 2015. I deny both
motions.
Ms. Chytka is proceeding pro se. Thus, I have construed her pleadings and other
filings more liberally and held them to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings
1

“[#481]” 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.

drafted by lawyers. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Andrews v.
Heaton, 483 F.3d 1070, 1076 (10th Cir. 2007); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991).
On February 15, 2013, I entered an order [#197] granting the motion for
summary judgment of the defendant on all claims of the plaintiff, except for her claim of
discriminatory failure to train based on gender. The failure to train claim was presented
at trial. At the close of all of the evidence, I granted the motion of the defendant, Wright
Tree Service, Inc., for entry of judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P.
50(a)(1). Minutes [#454], p. 3. The plaintiff, Kathleen Chytka, appealed the summary
judgment and Rule 50(a)(1) rulings of the court to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. The tenth circuit upheld the dismissal of each of the claims of Ms.
Chytka. Chytka v Wright Tree Service, Inc., 2015 WL 1320241, at *1 (10th Cir. 2015).
When a case has been tried to a jury, a new trial may be granted “for any of the
reasons for which new trial have heretofore been granted in actions at law in the courts
of the United States.” FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a)(1). A motion for new trial “is not regarded
with favor and should only be granted with great caution.” United States v. Kelley, 929
F.2d 582, 586 (10th Cir. 1991). The decision whether to grant a new trial is committed to
the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.
The present motions also could be read as motions to reconsider the rulings of
this court dismissing all of the claims of Ms. Chytka. 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
2

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 present motions, the plaintiff does not present anything which
demonstrates a valid basis for granting a new trial or for reconsideration of previous
rulings of the court. To the extent the plaintiff purports to present new evidence, she
makes no showing that this evidence was previously unavailable in her own records or
via discovery in this case. Further, she makes no showing that this purported new
evidence in any way would alter the bases for the rulings of this court dismissing all of
her claims.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. That the Motion To Add New Exhibit Evidence and Reopen This Case
Exhibit 2000A, 2000 B, 2000 C, 2000 D, 2000 E, 2000F 2000G A Pay Stubs from 1011-2002 and 2-21-2003 and 7-4-2009 [#481] filed May 26, 2015, is denied; and
2. That the Motion To the Court for Status on Motion To Add New Exhibit
Evidence and Reopen This Case Exhibit 2000A, 2000 B, 2000 C, 2000 D, 2000 E,
2000F 2000G A Pay Stubs from 10-11-2002 and 2-21-2003 and 7-4-2009. Filed on
May 26, 2015. Or allow I Kathleen Chytka my Summery of Judgment Relief. To be
Answered by 6-22-2015. [#482] filed June 18, 2015, is denied.

Dated September 21, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.

3

BY THE COURT:

4