Seay et al v. Oklahoma Board of Dentistry et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 69 Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 9/10/2020. (mb)

Case 5:17-cv-00682-D Document 81 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
(1) JOSEPH P. SEAY, D.D.S., MS,
(2) LOIS JACOBS, D.D.S., MS,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
(1) OKLAHOMA BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-17-682 D

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider the April 21, 2020 Order on
Statute of Limitations and Brief in Support [Doc. No. 69], which seeks relief from the
Court’s Order granting partial summary judgment to Defendants [Doc. No. 67].1
Defendants have filed a response [Doc. No. 77], and the matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to revisit its April 21, 2020 Order [Doc. No. 67], which
granted in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No 61]. The standard for
reconsideration is clear: “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 clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Brumark Corp. v. Samson Resources
Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995)). “[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate
where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law. It

1

The Court will address the supplemental briefing [Doc. Nos. 68, 74, 75] on the
outstanding restraint of trade issue in a separate order.

Case 5:17-cv-00682-D Document 81 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 2

is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have
been raised in prior briefing.” Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012; see United States
v. Christy, 739 F.3d 534, 539 (10th Cir. 2014).
The instant Motion does not provide any grounds to reconsider the April 21, 2020
Order. Plaintiffs assert the Court should reconsider its rulings in light of the 2015, 2018,
and 2019 amendments to the Oklahoma Dental Act (“ODA”). Plaintiffs, however, have
addressed these amendments in briefs submitted to the Court. Plaintiffs concede this point
in the instant Motion. See [Doc. No. 69] at 2, 11, 12. The instant Motion does not include
an intervening change in the law, new evidence that was previously unavailable, or the
need to correct clear error or manifest injustice. Instead, it merely reargues already decided
points. Thus, the instant Motion for reconsideration [Doc. No. 69] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of September, 2020.