Thommen Medical USA, LLC v. Tanner

Filing 70

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Summary Judgment. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 3/16/2015.(alowe)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 11-cv-03010-REB-CBS
THOMMEN MEDICAL USA, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSHUA TANNER,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff Thommen Medical USA, LLC’s Motion for
Reconsideration of order Granting Summary Judgment [#36]1 filed February 20,
2013. The defendant filed a response [#43]. I deny the motion.
The plaintiff, Thommen Medical USA, LLC, seeks reconsideration of my order
[#34] granting the motion for summary judgment of the defendant. Consistently, the
plaintiff has argued that this court does not have jurisdiction over this case, which
originated in the courts of the state of Ohio. Thommen never filed a motion to
remand in this court but did file a motion [#23] seeking an award of statutory costs for
improper removal. Now and in the past, Thommen contends and has contended
that, at the time the defendant filed his motion for summary judgment [#21] and when

1

“[#36]” 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.

the court entered its order [#34] granting the motion for summary judgment, there
were disputes over material facts such that the defendant was not entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.
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.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
I have reviewed the motion [#36], the response [#43], my order [#34] granting the
motion for summary judgment, and my related orders [#49 & 55] addressing the motions
for sanctions of the defendants. In its motion to reconsider [#36], the plaintiff largely rehashes its previous arguments about the jurisdiction of this court and the claimed
viability of its claims for damages and injunctive relief. As discussed in my previous
orders, Thommen often has taken starkly contradictory positions on the record in this
case about the viability or non-viability of its claims. In the end, however, by the time I
entered my order [#34] granting the motion for summary judgment, Thommen had
produced no evidence substantiating its claims for damages and had stated on the
record that its claim for injunctive relief was moot. In its present motion, Thommen does
not show (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously
unavailable, or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Thus, I
deny the motion to reconsider.
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Thommen Medical USA, LLC’s
Motion for Reconsideration of order Granting Summary Judgment [#36] filed
February 20, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated March 16, 2015, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3