Ordonez v. Taylorsville City Police Department

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

SONIA ORDONEZ,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND/OR TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

v. Case No. 2:23-cv-00458-TC-CMR

TAYLORSVILLE CITY POLICE Judge Tena Campbell DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Sonia Ordonez moves the court to reconsider and/or to alter and amend the final judgment in this action under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 126.) For the following reasons, the court denies her motion. The Tenth Circuit has set forth narrow grounds that warrant granting a motion for relief from a court’s final judgment, which 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.” Alpenglow Botanicals, LLC v. United States, 894 F.3d 1187, 1203 (10th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). Ms. Ordonez has not met this standard. First, Ms. Ordonez does not allege an intervening change in the controlling law. Second, while Ms. Ordonez states that she intends to submit a supplemental filing, she does not explain why any new evidence was not previously available. Third, while Ms. Ordonez alleges that the court previously “overlooked and mischaracterized substantial evidence in the record,” she does not point to any specific examples. (ECF No. 126 at 2). ORDER Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Ordonez’s motion for reconsideration and/or to alter or amend the court’s judgment. DATED this 6th day of October, 2025. BY THE COURT: Jone Compare Tena Campbell United States District Judge