Foy v. Union Development Corporation et al

Filing 64

ORDER by Circuit Judge Paul Kelly, Jr. denying as moot 52 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay; denying 60 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (rt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

ERIN FOY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO.,
and RICHARD MOORE,

No. 1:17-cv-00992-PJK-SCY

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
HER SECOND MOTION FOR REMAND

THIS MATTER comes before the court on Plaintiff Erin Foy’s Motion for
Reconsideration of Her Second Motion for Remand filed June 25, 2018 (ECF No. 60). 1
Ms. Foy seeks reconsideration of the memorandum opinion and order denying her second
motion to remand. ECF No. 46.
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion for
reconsideration,’” but “‘a district court always has the inherent power to reconsider its
1

No response has been filed and the court was not advised of any agreement to extend
the response deadline. See D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.4(a). In any event, it would not be
appropriate to grant this motion on presumed consent because it lacks merit. See
D.N.M.LR-Civ. 7.1(b).

interlocutory rulings’ before final judgment is entered.” Spring Creek Expl. & Prod. Co.
v. Hess Bakken Inv., II, LLC, 887 F.3d 1003, 1023 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Warren v.
Am. Bankers Ins. of Fla., 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007)). Here, Ms. Foy asks the
court to reconsider its determination that Richard Moore is a dispensable party, arguing
that a separate action against Mr. Moore in state court could create “inconsistent
remedies.”
Ms. Foy confuses inconsistent obligations with inconsistent adjudications. An
“inconsistent obligation” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) refers to
the scenario where a party is unable to comply with one court’s order without breaching
another’s. 4 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 19.03 (3d ed. 2018). It
does not refer to the scenario Ms. Foy suggests could occur: a federal court finds that
State Farm did not violate New Mexico’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act while a state
court finds that Mr. Moore did. See id. §§ 19.03, .06 (noting that Rule 19 does not
require the joinder of joint tortfeasors or principals and agents).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that
(1) Ms. Foy’s Motion for Reconsideration of Her Second Motion for Remand filed
June 25, 2018 (ECF No. 60), is denied.
(2) Ms. Foy’s Motion to Stay filed June 7, 2018 (ECF No. 52) is denied as moot as
Ms. Foy voluntary dismissed her interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 63).

-2-

DATED this 13th day of July, 2018, at Santa Fe, New Mexico.

United States Circuit Judge
Sitting by Designation

-3-