Davidson et al v. Dollar Tree Stores et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 34 Motion to Alter Judgment or, in the alternative, to Relieve Plaintiffs from Final Judgment. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 6/7/2011. (ce)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

MARY DAVIDSON and JOEL
CHRISTIANSEN,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO ALTER JUDGMENT
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
RELIEVE PLAINTIFFS FROM
FINAL JUDGMENT

vs.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., DAN
CASTRO, CINDY CHARITY, FRANKIE
PAYNE, MIKE IVANICH, and SUE
STEVENS,

Case No. 2:10-CV-260 TS

Defendants.

The Court has before it Plaintiffs Mary Davidson and Joel Christiansen’s Motion to Alter
Judgment or, in the alternative, to Relieve Plaintiffs from Final Judgment.1 For the reasons set
forth below, the Court will deny the Motion.

1

Docket No. 34.
1

This Court recently dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Dollar Tree Stores,
Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) because Plaintiffs filed their claims in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 626(d),
leaving this Court without subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.2 Plaintiffs now
contend that the Court should reconsider this decision under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and 60.
Under Rule 59(e),
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. Thus, a motion for
reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a
party’s position, or the controlling law.3
Similarly, under Rule 60(b), a Court may order relief from final judgment for, inter alia,
“mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;” and “any other reason that justifies
relief.”4
Plaintiffs contend that the Court’s Order dismissing their claims against Dollar Tree must
be reconsidered to prevent manifest injustice. In reviewing Plaintiffs’ arguments, however, the
Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion is simply an attempt to reargue the merits of the underlying
Motion to Dismiss. Such an attempt is inappropriate and must be rejected. As stated by the
Tenth Circuit, “a motion for reconsideration and a successive Rule 60(b) motion . . . are
inappropriate vehicles to reargue an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion

2

See Docket No. 31.

3

Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000).

4

Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1) & (6).
2

merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were available at the time of the
original motion.”5 The Court, therefore, finds that Plaintiffs’ Motion fails and will be denied.
It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter Judgement or, in the alternative, to Relieve
Plaintiffs from Final Judgment (Docket No. 34) is DENIED.
DATED June 7, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________
TED STEWART
United States District Judge

5

Servants of Paraclete, 204 F.3d at 1012.
3