United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
A. KIMBALL United States District Judge.
matter is before the court on Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant Advanced Recovery Systems, LLC (“ARS”)
and Counterclaim Defendant Kinum's Motion for
Reconsideration of Rulings in Memorandum Decision and Order
Dated September 28, 2016 [Docket No. 320]. ARS and Kinum ask
the court to revise its grant of partial summary judgment
that AA has not breached the license agreement at issue in
this case, that ARS has breached the License Agreement, and
that ARS and Kinum violated the Utah Trade Secrets Act by
misappropriating data that was housed in the ARS Software.
The motion is fully briefed. The court concludes that oral
argument would not significantly aid the court in
determination of the motion. Accordingly, the court issues
the following Memorandum Decision and Order based on the
memoranda submitted by the parties and the facts and law
relevant to the motion.
within the court's discretion to reconsider a previous
order. Anderson v. Deer & Co., 852 F.2d 1244,
1246 (10th Cir. 1988). Rule 54(b) provides that
“any order or other form of decision, however
designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or
the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties
shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or
parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject
to revision at any time before the entry of judgment
adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of
all the parties.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). In Major v.
Benton, 647 F.2d 110, 112 (10th Cir. 1981),
the Tenth Circuit explained:
When a court enunciates a rule of law in the course of a
given case, the law of the case doctrine generally requires
the court to adhere to the rule throughout the proceedings.
1B Moore's Federal Practice P 0.404(1) at 402-03. The
rule is one of expedition, designed to bring about a quick
resolution of disputes by preventing continued reargument of
issues already decided. Roberts v. Cooper, 61 U.S.
(20 How.) 467, 481, 15 L.Ed. 969 (1858); White v.
Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir. 1967). Unlike res
judicata, the rule is not an "inexorable command, "
but is to be applied with good sense. Murtha, 377
F.2d at 431-32 . . . . When a lower court is convinced that
an interlocutory ruling it has made is substantially
erroneous, the only sensible thing to do is to set itself
right to avoid subsequent reversal. Lindsey v.
Dayton-Hudson Corp., 592 F.2d 1118, 1121 (10th Cir.),
cert. denied, 444 U.S. 856, 100 S.Ct. 116, 62
L.Ed.2d 75 (1979) . . . . Courts have generally permitted a
modification of the law of the case when substantially
different, new evidence has been introduced, subsequent,
contradictory controlling authority exists, or the original
order is clearly erroneous. See Fuhrman v. United States
Steel Corp., 479 F.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir.), cert.
denied, 414 U.S. 859, 94 S.Ct. 71, 38 L.Ed.2d 110
(1973); Murtha, 377 F.2d at 431-32.
Rule 54(b) allows a court to revisit any order that rules on
less than all of the claims in a case, a motion to reconsider
is not appropriate when it merely restates the party's
position taken in the initial motion. A motion for
reconsideration is an “inappropriate vehicle to reargue
an issue previously addressed by the court when the motion
merely advances new arguments, or supporting facts which were
available at the time of the original motion. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, . . . the basis for the second
motion must not have been available at the time the first
motion was filed.” Servants of the Paracletes v.
Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A
motion to reconsider must be made upon grounds other than a
mere disagreement with the court's decision and must do
more than rehash a party's former arguments that were
rejected by the court.
their motion, ARS and Kinum contend that the court failed to
view the evidence and inferences in the light most favorable
to ARS and Kinum and erroneously applied the law. However,
ARS and Kinum merely rehash prior unsuccessful arguments. The
court already addressed and rejected these arguments. ARS and
Kinum's present motion merely disagrees with the
court's prior analysis. The court's prior ruling
interpreted the plain language of the License Agreement. The
interpretation of unambiguous contract language is well
within the province of the court. The court also explained
that, based on the contemporaneous evidence in the record
before the court, no reasonable jury could conclude that the
disputed $150, 000 was not a disputed and questionable
amount. ARS and Kinum did not provide evidence to the
contrary and have not provided any new evidence or law that
convinces the court that its prior ruling should be revisited
or was clearly erroneous. Furthermore, ARS and Kinum's
arguments with respect to the UTSA claim are without merit
and mischaracterize or misunderstand the court's findings
Kinum advance no new evidence, arguments, or case law that
were not already advanced or available to them at the time of
the original motions. After considering each of their
arguments, the court concludes that there is no basis for
reconsidering or altering its prior ruling. ARS and
Kinum's proper recourse on their disagreements with the
court's analysis is to raise them on appeal after the
trial in this matter. Accordingly, ARS and ...