Lilak v. Takeda Pharmaceutical North America, INC.

Filing 80

MINUTE ORDER denying 78 Motion Demanding Compensation for Injuries and Damages Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/23/2015.(agarc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03379-PAB-MJW
SAFDAR LILAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Demanding Compensation for
Injuries and Damages Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary (Docket No. 78) is DENIED, for
the following reasons.
Final judgment in this case was entered by U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer
on January 7, 2015 (Docket No. 75), after Judge Brimmer accepted the report and
recommendation that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted (Docket
Nos. 59, 65, & 74). On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “Motion Demanding
Compensation for Injuries and Damages Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary” (Docket No.
78), which Judge Brimmer referred to Magistrate Judge Watanabe (Docket No. 79).
Plaintiff’s motion purports to be filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g).
However, that rule does not provide any relief to plaintiff. Rather, Rule 9(g) states that
“special damages” – i.e., damages that are not “the usual and natural consequence of
the wrongful act complained of,” DerKevorkian v. Lionbridge Technologies, No. 04-cv01160-LTB, 2006 WL 197320, at *4 (D. Colo. Jan. 26, 2006); see also Weyerhaeuser
Co. v. Brantley, 510 F.3d 1256, 1266 (10th Cir. 2007) – must be specifically pled. It is a
rule of pleading, not a basis for liability or for any sort of summarily granted judgment.
Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks relief under Rule 9(g), his motion must be
denied.
After citing Rule 9(g), Plaintiff repeats (and indeed appears to have copied-andpasted) most of the language from his earlier motions. Those motions have all been
rejected by the court and Plaintiff has identified no basis for reconsideration. See
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (“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.” (internal
citation omitted)). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the
court’s orders, his motion must also be denied.
Date: January 23, 2015