Munjak v. Signator Investors Inc.

Full title: JOHN MUNJAK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIGNATOR INVESTORS, INC., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Jan 9, 2004

CIVIL ACTION No. 02-2108-CM (D. Kan. Jan. 9, 2004)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION No. 02-2108-CM

January 9, 2004

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge

This matter comes before the court on Signator Investors, Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration in Part of the Court's Memorandum and Order Consolidating Cases (Doc. 123). Defendants request the court to reconsider its consolidation order and, instead, separate plaintiffs John and Linda Munjak's case from that of the other plaintiffs.

Pursuant to District of Kansas local rule 7.3, a party may file a motion asking a court to reconsider its order. The local rule also specifies that a party seeking reconsideration of a court's dispositive order must file its motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) or 60. D. Kan. Rule 7.3(a). Motions for reconsideration "filed within ten days of the district court's entry of judgment . . . [are] treated as a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e)." Hatfield v. Bd. of County Comm'rs for Converse County, 52 F.3d 858, 861 (10th Cir. 1995). Because defendants filed their motion on the 10th day after the court's order, the court will review it under Rule 59(e).

Reconsideration is proper when there has been a manifest error of law or fact, when new evidence has been discovered, or when there has been a change in the relevant law. Brumark Corp. v. Samson Res. Corp., 57 F.3d 941, 948 (10th Cir. 1995); Rasdall v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22939244 (D. Kan. Nov. 25, 2003). A motion to reconsider is not a second chance for the losing party to direct the Court to revisit issues already addressed or to hear new arguments or supporting facts that could have been presented originally. See Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). The decision of whether to grant or deny a motion to reconsider is committed to the court's discretion. Hancock v. City of Okla. City, 857 F.2d 1394, 1395 (10th Cir. 1988).

Defendants' motion for reconsideration presents the same arguments that were before the court when it issued its original order. Defendants have not demonstrated that the court's order results in a manifest error of law or fact, that new evidence has been discovered, or that there has been a change in relevant law. Defendants' motion for reconsideration is therefore denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.