Cassino v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Raymond P. Moore

Civil Action No. 20-cv-03228-RM-KLM

LANCE CASSINO,

Plaintiff,

v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ASHLEY JORDAN, SERINA LEE, RAYMOND SKERLING, II, and ROBERT HOFFMAN,

Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend its September 27, 2021, Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), requesting that the Order “be altered to reflect the fact that his case was ordered administratively closed due to a sua sponte determination of the applicability of the Colorado River doctrine.” (ECF No. 52 at 6.) The Motion has been fully briefed (ECF Nos. 53, 54) and is denied for the reasons below. Grounds for granting relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Monge v. RG Petro-Mach. (Grp.) Co., 701 F.3d 598, 611 (10th Cir. 2012). But such a motion “cannot be used to expand a judgment to encompass new issues which could have been raised prior to issuance of the judgment.” Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Middle Man, Inc., 822 F.3d 524, 536 (10th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). Plaintiff's Motion does not identify any intervening change in the controlling law or any new evidence. Instead, Plaintiff merely rehashes his argument that Defendants failed to adequately raise the issue of whether abstention under the Colorado River doctrine was warranted, and therefore Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should have been denied. But “Rule 59(e) motions are not appropriate to revisit issues already addressed or advance arguments that could have been raised in prior briefing.” Ne/son v. City of Albuquerque, 921 F.3d 925, 929 (10th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 52), and this case remains administratively closed. DATED this 9th day of December, 2021. BY THE COURT:

United States District Judge