Catlin v. Salt Lake City School District et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 42 Motion to Set Aside Judgment ; denying 44 Motion for Reconsideration to Alter and Amend Dismissal, Memorandum Decision Overruling R&R ; denying as moot 47 Motion to Errata to Correct Amend Cover Sheet Demand Amount. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 05/03/2011. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SET ASIDE FINAL
JUDGMENT AND MOTION FOR
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et
Case No. 2:09-CV-777 TS
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Susan Catlin’s Motion to Set Aside Final
Judgment and Motion for Reconsideration. For the reasons discussed below, the Motions will be
Plaintiff’s Motions were filed within 28 days of the Court’s Order dismissing this case,
therefore the Court considers Plaintiff’s Motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).1
Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[A] motion to
reconsider filed within [twenty-eight] days after entry of judgment is considered a Fed.R.Civ.P.
59(e) motion.”); Dalton v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 863 F.2d 702, 703 (10th Cir. 1988)
(“[R]egardless of how styled, a motion questioning the correctness of a judgment and timely
The Tenth Circuit has recognized the following grounds as warranting a motion to
reconsider under Rule 59(e): (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.2
“Thus, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts,
a party’s position, or the controlling law. It is not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed
or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.”3
Plaintiff has not shown that the Court misapprehended the facts, a party’s position, or the
controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff simply revisits the arguments raised in the documents
previously submitted to the Court. Therefore, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motions.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment (Docket No. 42) is
DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 44) is DENIED. It is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Cover Sheet (Docket No. 47) is DENIED
made within [twenty-eight] days thereof will be treated under Rule 59(e).”).
Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
Id. (citation omitted).
DATED May 3, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
United States District Judge
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?