Makeen Investment Group, LLC et al v. Woodstream Falls Condominium Association, Inc.
ORDER denying 11 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's 9 Order of Dismissal and Re-Open the Case. ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 4/9/2018. (cthom, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 18-cv-00767-RM-STV
MAKEEN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC,
a Colorado limited liability company; and
AKEEM MAKEEN, individually and in his official capacity as member,
WOODSTREAM FALLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCATION, INC.,
a Colorado non-profit corporation,
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ “Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of
Dismissal and Re-Open the Case [ECF. 9]” (ECF No. 11), requesting this Court to “re-open” the
case based on excusable neglect. “The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure recognize no motion for
reconsideration.” Hawkins v. Evans, 64 F.3d 543, 546 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Nonetheless, “the court retains the power to alter rulings until final
judgment is entered on a cause.” Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Thompson Theatres, Inc., 621
F.2d 1088, 1090 (10th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)). In this case,
final judgment has entered; therefore, reconsideration may not be had. Moreover, even if the
request for reconsideration is proper (or is construed as a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)),
excusable neglect is not the standard. See Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Mosaic Potash
Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195, 1212 (10th Cir. 2012) (setting forth grounds which may warrant
reconsideration).1 Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ “Reconsideration of the Court’s Order of Dismissal and ReOpen the Case [ECF.9]” (ECF No. 11) is DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of April, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
To the extent Plaintiffs may be relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) (which they did not cite), which provides for
relief from a judgment based on excusable neglect, the Court finds such neglect which would support relief has not
been shown. Plaintiffs’ representation that “[t]he response in this case had been cut off at the bottom so it was not
complete” is not supported by the signed signature blocks which appear right after the arguments in their Response.
Moreover, counsel was well aware of alleged issues with her email and internet “for a few months” (ECF No. 11,
page 1). See Pelican Prod. Corp. v. Marino, 893 F.2d 1143, 1146 (10th Cir. 1990) (“Carelessness by a litigant or
his counsel does not afford a basis for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).”).
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?