Allied Steel Construction Company LLC v. Simmons Construction LLC et al

Filing 21

ORDER denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 5/1/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
for and on behalf of ALLIED STEEL
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC,
an Oklahoma limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SIMMONS CONSTRUCTION, LLC,
an Arizona limited liability company, and
HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-12-617-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, field April 2, 2013. On April 10, 2013, Defendant Hudson
Insurance Company’s Response and Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration was
filed. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Motion to reconsider

Plaintiff moves this Court to reconsider its March 5, 2013 Order granting the motion to
dismiss filed by defendant Hudson Insurance Company in this matter. “Grounds warranting a
motion to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants
of the Paraclete v. John Does I-XVI, 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” but is not appropriate “to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Id.

Having carefully reviewed plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds no grounds warranting
reconsideration in the case at bar. Specifically, the Court finds no intervening change in the
controlling law, no new evidence previously unavailable, and no need to correct clear error or
prevent manifest injustice. The Court further finds it did not misapprehend the facts, it did not
misapprehend plaintiff’s position, and it did not misapprehend the controlling law. In its motion,
plaintiff simply revisits issues that were addressed in the Court’s March 5, 2013 Order and
advances arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.
Accordingly, the Court finds that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider should be denied.
II.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 19].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of May, 2013.