Perkins v. M&N Dealerships XII LLC

Filing 18

ORDER denying 14 and 15 plaintiff's Amended Motion to Reconsider (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 4/17/2017. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LASANDRA PERKINS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
M & N DEALERSHIPS XII, LLC d/b/a
METRO FORD OF OKC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-16-796-M

ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reconsider, filed March 10, 2017. On
March 31, 2017, defendant filed its response. Based upon the parties’ submissions, the Court
makes its determination.
On February 13, 2017, this Court entered an order granting defendant’s Motion to Compel
Arbitration and for Evidentiary Hearing and Stay of Proceedings, compelling arbitration of
plaintiff’s claims, and staying further proceedings as to plaintiff’s claims pending arbitration.
Plaintiff now moves this Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), to reconsider
its ruling granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. “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 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. Finally, the
Court finds that in her motion, plaintiff simply reasserts arguments made in her response to the
motion to compel arbitration and at the evidentiary hearing and advances arguments that could
have been raised in her response and at the hearing.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Reconsider [docket nos.
14 and 15].
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of April, 2017.