Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heavy Petroleum Partners, LLC v. Atkins

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

October 31, 2013

HEAVY PETROLEUM PARTNERS, LLC, and CHEROKEE WELLS, LLC Plaintiffs,
v.
PAUL ATKINS, an individual, and J.J.R. OF KANSAS LIMITED, Defendants.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

ERIC F. MELGREN, District Judge.

After conducting a bench trial on May 14, 2013, the Court issued its Memorandum and Opinion on July 23, 2013 (Doc. 234). The Court awarded judgment and quieted title in Plaintiffs' favor. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to request reconsideration of a final judgment.[1] The Court will reconsider an earlier judgment if the movant presents evidence of (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) newly discovered evidence, or (3) the need to correct a clear error in the earlier judgment.[2] In other words, "a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law."[3] Rule 59(e) is not, however, an appropriate vehicle for revisiting issues already considered or arguing matters that were not raised in prior briefs.[4]

In Defendants' briefing to the Court, they assert two arguments. First, they appear to raise a new argument that the Farmout Agreement (the contract between the parties) is not a valid contract due to a lack of consideration. Second, they contend that there is no clear and convincing evidence of Defendants' waiver of a provision in the contract. After reviewing Defendants' motion to amend, the record in this case, and the Court's previous Order, the Court concludes that Defendants do not identify an intervening change in the controlling law, newly discovered evidence, or the need to correct a clear error in the earlier judgment. Consequently, there is no need for the Court to amend or alter its previous order awarding judgment and quieting title in Plaintiffs' favor.[5]

IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED this 31st day of October, 2013, that Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (Doc. 235) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.