Ellis et al v. Lemons et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order denying 54 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 1/27/16. (jlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
PHILLIP C. ELLIS AND HEIDI B. ELLIS,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD LEMONS, M.D., CHELSEA,
GRIFFIN, AND EMILY HELM,

Case No. 2:15-CV-212 TS

Defendant.

District Judge Ted Stewart

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Phillip and Heidi Ellis’s Motion for
Reconsideration of its prior Memorandum Decision and Order, dated November 19, 2015
(Docket No. 49). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion.
“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.” 1 “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.” 2 The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not met this burden. Plaintiffs have
not introduced any intervening change in controlling law, have not pointed to new evidence
previously unavailable, and have not shown a clear and manifest injustice in the Court’s prior
Order.

1

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

2

Id. (internal citation omitted).

1

It is therefore
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Docket No. 54) is DENIED.
DATED this 26th day of January, 2016.
BY THE COURT:

Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2