Collins v. CFAM Financial Services, LLC
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT. 10 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment is DENIED, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 4/18/2016.(agarc, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 16-cv-00377-LTB
CFAM FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, a/k/a CONSUMER FINANCE ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC, Jointly and Severally Liable,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF
No. 10. The Court must construe the Motion liberally because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110
(10th Cir. 1991). For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny the Motion.
A litigant subject to an adverse judgment, and who seeks reconsideration by the
district court of that adverse judgment, may Afile either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).@ Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243
(10th Cir. 1991). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within
twenty-eight days after the judgment is entered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court
will consider the request for relief pursuant to Rule 59(e) because it was filed within
twenty-eight days after this action was dismissed and judgment was entered on March
18, 2016. See Van Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243 (stating that a motion to reconsider should
be construed as filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) when it is filed within the ten-day limit (limit
effective prior to December 1, 2009) set forth under Rule 59(e)).
The three major grounds that justify reconsideration are: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct
clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion to reconsider is appropriate where the court
has misapprehended the facts, a party=s position, or the controlling law. Id. (citing Van
Skiver, 952 F.2d at 1243).
For the same reasons stated in the March 18, 2016 Order of Dismissal, the Court
will deny Plaintiff=s request for relief from judgment. Plaintiff requested in his Complaint
in this case that this Court vacate and set aside the state court’s ruling that granted CFAM
summary judgment in Colorado state court No. 10-CV-1307. Compl., ECF no. 1 at 18.
Plaintiff argues this ruling was based on fraudulent testimony by a CFAM representative,
who claimed that CFAM is not a debt collector. ECF No. 1 at 4. Plaintiff argues his
fraud claim is subject to review by this Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 as an
independent claim, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic. ECF No. 1 at 7; ECF No. 10.
The appropriate question, however, is whether these claims may have been
brought in federal court without respect to what occurred in the state court. Bolden v.
City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1145 (10th Cir. 2006). In other words, if the claims do not
require an “appellate-type” review of the state court proceedings or judgment, then
Rooker–Feldman does not apply. See id. Plaintiff claims he has been injured by the
state court’s ruling and asks this Court to vacate and set aside the ruling. Because a
review of the state court ruling would be required to grant the relief Plaintiff seeks, this
action is barred by Rooker-Feldman. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff=s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, ECF No. 10, is
construed as filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and is denied.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 18th
BY THE COURT:
s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?