Menocal et al v. The GEO Group, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER on Motion for Reconsideration. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration 29 is DENIED, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the Motion for Reconsideration 31 and Motion to Stay Plaintiffs' Response Deadline 32 are DENIED AS MOOT. Entered by Judge John L. Kane on 08/26/15.(jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 14-cv-02887-JLK
ALEJANDRO MENOCAL,
MARCOS BRAMBILA,
GRISEL XAHUENTITLA,
HUGO HERNANDEZ,
LOURDES ARGUETA,
JESUS GAYTAN,
OLGA ALEXAKLINA,
DAGOBERTO VIZGUERRA, and
DEMETRIO VALEGRA,
on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE GEO GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Kane, J.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 29) of the Court’s
ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 23). For the reasons that follow, the motion is
DENIED.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. Hatfield v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs for Converse Cnty., 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th
Cir. 1995). A motion for reconsideration “is an extreme remedy to be granted in rare
circumstances.” Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 944 (10th Cir. 1995). In
fact, the grounds for a motion to reconsider are typically limited to: “(1) an intervening change in
1

the controlling law; (2) new evidence previously unavailable; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th
Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp., 57 F.3d at 948). Therefore, a motion to reconsider 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.” Id. (citing Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991)).
In its motion, Defendant does not identify any intervening change in controlling law or
new evidence previously unavailable. In fact, Defendant expressly admits that the Court’s
interpretation of the TVPA is an issue of “first impression.” Doc. 29 at 2. Instead, Defendant
presents an expanded version of its previously raised statutory construction arguments regarding
the TVPA and asserts that the Court’s previous rejection of those arguments was error. See Doc.
29 at 10-23; Doc. 11 at 11-15. Defendant likewise makes arguments that Plaintiffs’ claims are
barred by the government contractor defense which were previously raised and rejected. See
Doc. 29 at 29-30; Doc. 18 at 5-8. These are precisely the sort of attempts to “revisit issues
already addressed” which are inappropriate for a motion for reconsideration. Servants of
Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012. Finally, Defendant brings a new argument that Plaintiffs’ unjust
enrichment claim should be dismissed because Plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation that they
would be paid for their work. Doc. 29 at 23-28. This argument could have been, but was not,
raised in Defendant’s original motion to dismiss, and accordingly the Court will not consider it
for the first time on a motion for reconsideration. See Doc. 11 at 15; Servants of Paraclete, 204
F.3d at 1012.

2

For these reasons, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 29) is DENIED, and
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31) and Motion to Stay
Plaintiffs’ Response Deadline (Doc. 32) are DENIED AS MOOT.

Dated: August 26, 2015

s/ John L. Kane
Senior U.S. District Judge

3