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)

Download PDF
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.

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?