Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. v. Universal American Mortgage Company, LLC

Filing 93

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 86 Motion for Reconsideration. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/11/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00091-REB-KMT
LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL AMERICAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend and/or Modify the Judgment
Entered January 28, 2014 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 [#86],1 filed February 25, 2014. I
deny the motion.
Although plaintiff’s invocation of Rule 59 is procedurally proper,2 plaintiff never
acknowledges the relevant standards governing such motions, under which the bases for
granting relief are exceptionally 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.

1

“[#86]” 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.
2

Plaintiff’s motion was filed within 28 days of the entry of judgment on January 28, 2014 [#83],
and therefore is properly considered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
Plaintiff fails to establish how any of these bases is implicated here. Instead, it merely
reasserts the same arguments this court rejected in granting defendant’s motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff’s suggestion that the court’s ruling may impact other currently pending
lawsuits brought by plaintiff on behalf of its creditors (see Reply at 1 [#92], filed April 4, 2014)
not only provides no reasoned basis for forcing the court to reexamine, yet again, its wellconsidered opinion, but also is wholly speculative and gives short shrift to the independent
judgment of these other, co-equal, tribunals.3 The appropriate mechanism for the type of
arguments plaintiff presents by this motion is an appeal.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend and/or Modify the
Judgment Entered January 28, 2014 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 [#86], filed February 25,
2014, is DENIED.
Dated April 11, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3

For example, the opinion to which plaintiff refers in its reply – Aurora Commercial Corp. f/k/a
Leham Brothers Bank, FSB v. Standard Pacific Mortgage, Inc., Civil Case No. 12-cv-03238-WJM-KLM
– although referencing my decision in this case, did not adopt my opinion wholesale, but instead fully and
thoughtfully considered the issues raised by and inherent to the motion there under consideration based
on many of the same authorities I considered in this case. (See id., Order Granting Defendant’s Motion
To Dismiss at 4-8 [#63], filed March 19, 2014.)

2