MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge.
On April 22, 2013, this court entered a memorandum and order dismissing plaintiffs' claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), denying leave to amend, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 51). For the following reasons, the court denies the motion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2012, alleging causes of action under RICO and state law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On April 22, 2013, this court determined that the complaint failed to state a RICO claim. The complaint failed to (1) allege two predicate acts of mail fraud or wire fraud with particularity, (2) allege Hobbs Act extortion, and (3) allege a continuing pattern. The court denied leave to amend because plaintiffs did not provide notice of the proposed amendment. And the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of the April 22, 2013 order under Rule 59(e). They argue that the court erroneously dismissed the RICO claim. And plaintiffs contend the court improperly denied leave to amend.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
The Tenth Circuit has recognized three grounds warranting reconsideration under Rule 59(e): (1) an intervening change in law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion under this rule is "appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Id.
Plaintiffs argue that the complaint stated a RICO claim and, regardless, the court should have granted leave to amend.
A. Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs contend that the complaint alleged two predicate acts of mail fraud and wire fraud with particularity. The court explained that:
Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged two predicate acts. Although plaintiffs make statements that defendants defrauded them, mail fraud and wire fraud are not committed simply by sending false statements through the mail or over the wires. Plaintiffs also fail to allege enough facts regarding defendants' alleged fraud on other persons.... [The] allegations do not indicate the time, place, and content of the misrepresentations, the person who made the false statement, or what acts resulted from the false statements.
(Doc. 49 at 4-5.)
Plaintiffs do not identify intervening law or new evidence. They simply contend that the court reached the wrong decision, which does not constitute clear error or manifest injustice. Plaintiffs' mere dissatisfaction with the court's ruling does not warrant reconsideration. Lopez v. Cricket Commc'n, Inc., No. 11-CV-1506-CMA-KMT, 2013 WL 2351336, at *2 (D. Colo. May 16, 2013) ("Plaintiff's disagreement with the ...