§Why CasetextPricing

Engl v. Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, Inc., et al

BRIEF in Opposition to 123 MOTION to Alter Judgment re Judgment, 121 Order on Motion to Dismiss,, Order on Report and Recommendations, Plaintiff's Motion To Reopen Case Pursuant To Rule 59

7 Cited authorities

  1. Servants of Paraclete v. Does

    204 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2000)   Cited 3,430 times
    Holding that district court can grant Rule 59 motions when there has been a change in the law since the prior judgment was issued, the movant presents new evidence that was previously unavailable, or there is a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice

  2. Hernandez v. Conriv Realty Associates

    182 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 206 times
    Holding dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are necessarily without prejudice

  3. Heineman v. Am. Home Prods. Corp.

    Civil Action No. 13-cv-02070-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 11, 2015)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Excluding opinions about defendants' state of mind

  4. McCormick v. McAlester

    Case No. CIV-11-166-RAW (E.D. Okla. Oct. 1, 2012)

    Case No. CIV-11-166-RAW 10-01-2012 JERRY MCCORMICK, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF MCALESTER, Defendant. Ronald A. White ORDER Before the court is Plaintiff's motion to reconsider and grant a new trial date [Docket No. 80]. Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider its ruling granting the summary judgment motion filed by the City of McAlester (hereinafter "the City"). Pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60, Plaintiff suggests to the court that the thrust of his claims may have been missed. He requests that the

  5. Howell v. Centric Grp., LLC

    Civil Action No. 09-cv-02299-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Mar. 28, 2012)

    Civil Action No. 09-cv-02299-MSK-CBS 03-28-2012 THOMAS HOWELL, Plaintiff, v. CENTRIC GROUP, LLC; and SCENTOILS.COM, INC., Defendants. Marcia S. Krieger Honorable Marcia S. Krieger OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Thomas Howell's Motion for Reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (#157), to which Defendant Centric Group

  6. Washington v. Colo. State Univ.

    433 F. App'x 699 (10th Cir. 2011)

    No. 11-1166. August 30, 2011. Lester L. Washington, BTL, MA, M.ED., ABD, Fort Collins, CO, pro se. Before LUCERO, EBEL and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND JUDGMENT After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent

  7. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 165,126 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."