Collins et al v. Great Plains Oilfield Rental LLC

Filing 89

ORDER denying 82 Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider an Order (as more fully set out in order). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 12/13/2013. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAVEN COLLINS and
THIALYNN ELAINE COLLINS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GREAT PLAINS OILFIELD RENTAL,
L.L.C., CATERPILLAR, INC, and
DELTA OIL FIELD TANK CO., L.L.C.,
Defendants.

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

Case No. CIV-12-1108-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider an Order, filed November 8, 2013.
On November 26, 2013, defendants filed their response. On December 9, 2013, plaintiffs replied.
Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
Plaintiffs move this Court to reconsider its October 28, 2013 Order granting Delta Oil
Field Tank Co. L.L.C.’s (“Delta”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff specifically
asserts that the omission of Delta in the Second Amended Complaint’s [docket no. 32] “Relief
Requested” section was a scrivener’s error.
“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 the parties’ submissions, the Court finds no grounds
warranting reconsideration in the case at bar. Specifically, the Court finds there was no
intervening change in the controlling law or new evidence previously available, and further,
plaintiffs’ counsel was given an opportunity to correct the error in the Second Amended
Complaint prior to Delta filing its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings1 [docket no. 63].
Additionally, the Court finds plaintiffs simply raised arguments they could, and should have
raised in their response to Delta’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [docket no. 69].
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider an Order [docket no. 82].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2013.

1

In addition to filing this Motion to Reconsider, plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Leave
to File Third Amended Complaint [docket no. 83] on November 8, 2013. Delta responded to the
motion on November 26, 2013 [docket no. 85]. In its response, Delta included two signed
declarations from Justin D. Heideman and Joshua C. Horrocks, counsel for Delta, declaring that
on or about the first part of August 2013, they were involved in a telephone call with Tom E.
Mullen, counsel for plaintiffs. Mr. Heideman informed Mr. Mullen that the Second Amended
Complaint [docket no. 32] was deficient as to Delta. Mr. Heideman further “offered to stipulate
to allow Plaintiffs to amend their Second Amended Complaint to cure the deficiency.” Defendant
Delta Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint at p. 9.