STINSON FARM AND RANCH, L.L.C. v. OVERFLOW ENERGY, L.L.C., CIV-14-1400-R. (2016)
Court: District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20160129e90
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 28, 2016
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, whereupon Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30), pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant responded in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows. "[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the
Summary: ORDER DAVID L. RUSSELL , District Judge . The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, whereupon Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30), pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant responded in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows. "[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the f..
More
ORDER
DAVID L. RUSSELL, District Judge.
The Court granted Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, whereupon Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reconsider (Doc. No. 30), pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant responded in opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff has filed a reply in support of its position. Having considered the parties' submissions, the Court finds as follows.
"[A] motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the court has misapprehended the facts, a party's position, or the controlling law." Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff contends the Court erred in multiple respects, with regard to both legal and factual conclusions. The Court, however, has reviewed the motion and response, its Order granting summary judgment and the parties' briefing addressing the issue of summary judgment. Although Plaintiff disagrees with the Court's conclusion that he received that which he bargained for, that is the negotiated price in exchange for the unrestricted transfer of the property at issue herein, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff's motion to reconsider. Defendant's request for attorney's fees is similarly denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
