Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc. et al

Filing 114

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 112 Motion for Reconsideration. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 10/7/2013.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01229-REB-BNB
CELESTE SHAW, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERTHINX, INC., a California corporation,
VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
JEFFREY MOYER, an individual,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of
Defendants’ Emergency Motion To Continue Deadline for Defendants’ Opposition
to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification and Appointment of
Class Counsel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [112],1 filed October 4, 2013.
I deny the motion.
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.
1

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

Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted). Plaintiffs’ motion offers nothing suggesting that any of these factors are
implicated in this case. Their apparent disagreement with the court’s ruling provides no
proper basis for reconsideration.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration
of Defendants’ Emergency Motion To Continue Deadline for Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Class Certification and
Appointment of Class Counsel and Incorporated Memorandum of Law [112], filed
October 4, 2013, is DENIED.
Dated October 7, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

2