United States District Court, D. Kansas
COOPER CLARK FOUNDATION, On behalf of itself and All others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
OXY USA INC., Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. BROOMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case comes before the court on Plaintiffs' motion to
reconsider. (Doc. 30.) The motion has been fully briefed and
is ripe for decision. (Docs. 31, 35.) Plaintiffs' motion
is DENIED for the reasons set forth herein.
March 27, 2019, this court entered an order denying
Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court.
(Doc. 28.) The detailed history of the consolidated state
court action is set forth in that order and will not be
restated here. The pertinent question in that decision was
whether a consolidated class action was merged into a single
action under Kansas state law. If so, the amount in
controversy was established in this case. In the prior order,
the undersigned conducted a review of Kansas and federal law
and determined that when a “plaintiff obtains
consolidation under K.S.A. 60-242(a)(2) of putative class
actions with overlapping claims, classes, and defendants,
consolidation results in merger and CAFA jurisdiction is
therefore evaluated based on the amount in controversy in the
merged case.” (Doc. 28 at 14-15.) Therefore, CAFA
jurisdiction was established and the motion to remand was
have now moved for reconsideration of this court's
decision. Plaintiffs argue that the court erred by
interpreting the state court judge's consolidation order
as a consolidation under 60-242(a)(2) and that the court
erred by not following federal law. The arguments will be
briefly addressed in turn.
(a) Consolidation. If actions involving a common question of
law or fact are pending before the court in the same or
different counties in the judicial district, the court may:
(1) Join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or
order denying remand, the court reviewed the underlying state
court judge's decision granting the motion to consolidate
the three class actions and the record in that consolidated
action. (Doc. 28.) The court concluded that the order of
consolidation was an order under K.S.A. 60-242(a)(2) based on
the language in the order. (Doc. 28 at 6.) Plaintiff contends
that this court erred construing the order for consolidation
as an order under section 60-242(a)(2) because the state
court did not specifically identify the subpart in the order.
Plaintiff, however, fails to identify how this court's
decision was erroneous. The state court judge did not
specifically identify the basis for the consolidation. But,
Plaintiff makes no argument that this case was consolidated
under a different subpart.
state court order stated that “Plaintiff is requesting
that all three (3) actions, currently in the 26th Judicial
District, be consolidated into one action.”
(Doc. 28 at 12) (emphasis supplied.) The order clearly
consolidates the matter into one action, as indicated by
60-242(a)(2). Plaintiff makes no attempt at a colorable
argument as to why the state court order was a consolidation
under a different subpart.
Plaintiffs have not shown the court erred in construing the
order as an order to consolidate under 60-242(a)(2).
Plaintiffs argue that this court erred by not following
federal law regarding consolidation under Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a)
and by “wading into the murky waters of divining the
legislative intent.” (Doc. 30 at 3-4.) Motions to
reconsider are appropriate when there is (1) an intervening
change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence, or (3) the
need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. D.
Kan. R. 7.3. A motion for reconsideration is not appropriate
“to revisit issues already addressed or advance
arguments that could have been raised in prior
briefing.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204
F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiffs' arguments
regarding federal law have already been presented to the
court and therefore reconsideration is not appropriate on
those grounds. With respect to Plaintiffs' objection to
this court's discussion on legislative history, the court
declines to find error. The court did not base its holding on
legislative history alone. Notably, ...