Rivera v. Exeter Finance Corp.

Filing 212

ORDER by Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/19/2019, re: 209 plaintiff's Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Plaintiff's Second Motion for Class Certification is DENIED. (sphil, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01057-PAB-MEH
EDGAR RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
EXETER FINANCE CORP.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Amended Motion for
Reconsideration of the Denial of Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Class Certification
[Docket No. 209]. Plaintiff’s principal argument is that the court committed clear error
when it found that plaintiff had not presented an ascertainable class. Docket No. 209 at
3.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically provide for motions for
reconsideration. See Hatfield v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th Cir.
1995). Instead, motions for reconsideration fall within a court’s plenary power to revisit
and amend interlocutory orders as justice requires. See Paramount Pictures Corp. v.
Thompson Theatres, Inc., 621 F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1980) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b)); see also Houston Fearless Corp. v. Teter 313 F.2d 91, 92 (10th Cir. 1962).
However, in order to avoid the inefficiency which would attend the repeated
re-adjudication of interlocutory orders, judges in this district have imposed limits on their

broad discretion to revisit interlocutory orders. See, e.g., Montano v. Chao, No. 07-cv00735-EWN-KMT, 2008 WL 4427087, at *5-6 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2008) (a pplying Rule
60(b) analysis to the reconsideration of interlocutory order); United Fire & Cas. Co. v.
McCrerey & Roberts Constr. Co., No. 06-cv-00037-WYD-CBS, 2007 WL 1306484, at
*1-2 (D. Colo. May 3, 2007) (applying Rule 59(e) standard to the reconsideration of the
duty-to-defend order). Regardless of the analysis applied, the basic assessment tends
to be the same: courts consider whether new evidence or legal authority has emerged
or whether the prior ruling was clearly in error. Motions to reconsider are generally an
inappropriate vehicle to advance “new arguments, or supporting facts which were
available at the time of the original motion.” Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).
Under any of these standards, plaintiff’s motion must be denied. Plaintiff cites
no new facts or case law contradictory to the March 31 ruling. Rather, plaintiff simply
(1) takes issue with the Court’s refusal to find an ascertainable class, (2) directs the
Court to a case decided before the Court’s March 31 order, and (3) reasserts
arguments already presented to and considered by the Court. None of these grounds
provide a basis for the Court to reconsider its March 31 order.
It is therefore
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Class Certification [Docket No. 209] is DENIED.

2

DATED November 19, 2019.
BY THE COURT:

s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
Chief United States District Judge

3