MEMORANDUM OPINION OR ORDER

JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Filings Under Rule 59(e) on August 22, 2011, filed August 23, 2011 (Doc. 95)("Motion"). The Court held a hearing on December 15, 2011. The principle issue is whether the Court may consider a motion for reconsideration brought under rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment. Because the Court concludes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and controlling precedent do not permit such consideration, the Court will deny the Motion.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court entered Final Judgment in favor of the Defendants on July 21, 2011. See Doc. d84, at 1. At some point between that date and August 22, 2011, Plaintiff Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc. ("POP Diesel") terminated its former legal counsel, and Claude D. Convisser, who is the POP Diesel's President and General Counsel, formally entered his appearance as POP Diesel's counsel on August 22, 2011. See Entry of Appearance of Claude D. Convisser on Behalf of Plaintiff Plant Oil Powered Diesel Fuel Systems, Inc., filed August 22, 2011 (Doc. 93); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave for Its Former Counsel Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett, P.A. to Withdraw, filed August 22, 2011 (Doc. 94). POP Diesel filed the Motion and a Motion to Reconsider Dismissal with Prejudice and for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, filed August 23, 2011 (Doc. 96)("Motion to Reconsider"), thirty-three days after entry of the Final Judgment. See Docs. 95, 96. POP Diesel states, however, that the Motion to Reconsider is brought "pursuant to Rules 59 and 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," Motion to Reconsider at 1 (emphasis added), "due to the errors of its Minnesota counsel that were unauthorized by, and in most cases, unknown at the time, to it," Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Reconsider Dismissal with Prejudice and for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint at 15, filed August 23, 2011 (Doc. 97)("Memo to Reconsider").

Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation objects to consideration under rule 59(e) on the basis of untimeliness. See Defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation's Opposition to Motion to Reconsider Dismissal with Prejudice and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint at 3-4, filed September 13, 2011 (Doc. 101). In its reply brief, the POP Diesel limited its argument to reconsideration under Rule 60(b). See Plaintiff's Consolidated Reply to the Defendants' Opposition to Its Motion to Reconsider Dismissal with Prejudice and for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint at 1, filed September 20, 2011 (Doc. 102)("Reply")("POP Diesel seeks relief under four parts of Rule 60(b)."). At the December 15, 2011 hearing, Mr. Convisser conceded: "I think that opposing counsel pointed out valid rules and case law which would argue strongly that in fact [the motion to reconsider under rule 59(e)] was, indeed, filed beyond the appropriate time frame to begin with." Transcript of Hearing at 6:2-5 (taken December 15, 2011)(Convisser)("Tr.").1

LAW REGARDING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER UNDER RULE 59(e)

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedures provide: "A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). "A court must not extend the time to act under" rules 59(e) and 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2); Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 214 F.3d 1175, 1179 (10th Cir. 2000)("It is clear that the district court was not empowered to grant Appellant additional time to file her 59(e) motion."). The 28-day2 time "period specified in Rule 59(e) is triggered by entry of the judgment, not by service of notice or other paper," thus "the three-day mail provision of Rule 6(e) is not applicable to a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) and does not extend the [twenty-eight]-day time period under that rule." Parker v. Bd. of Pub. Util., 77 F.3d 1289, 1291 (10th Cir. 1996). Accord Heffington v. Sedgwick County Dist. Court, 214 F.App'x 800, 802 (10th Cir. 2007)(unpublished). "A motion under rule 59 that is filed more than 28 days after entry of judgment may be treated as a rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment." Noland v. City of Albuquerque, No. 08-0056, Order Overruling the Plaintiff's Objections, Adopting in Part and Rejecting in Part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, and Denying the Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial at 7, filed January 27, 2012 (Doc. 184)("Noland Order") (quoting 12 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 59.11[4][b], at 59-32 (3d. 2011)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has also held that a court should generally construe an untimely motion to alter, amend, or reconsider under rule 59(e) as a motion for relief under rule 60(b). See Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., 214 F.3d at 1179.

ANALYSIS

POP Diesel's Motion to Reconsider under rule 59(e) was not timely brought, because POP Diesel filed it five days past the twenty-eight day deadline provided in the rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The Court may not extend the time period for timely filing motions under Rule 59(e), see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2); Weitz v. Lovelace Health Sys., Inc., 214 F.3d at 1179, and no other provision applies to extend the time for filing. Additionally, at the hearing, POP Diesel admitted that there appeared to be valid rules and case law that would strongly suggest that any motion under rule 59(e) is untimely. See Tr. at 6:2-5(Convisser). POP Diesel stated that it only argued rule 60(b) in its Reply and asserted that it would not make any further argument with respect to rule 59(e). See Tr. at 5:22-6:7 (Convisser).3 The Court will, therefore, deny POP Diesel's Motion to accept its Motion to Reconsider as one timely brought under Rule 59(e). See Parker v. Bd. of Pub. Util., 77 F.3d at 1291.

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Accept Filings Under Rule 59(e) on August 22, 2011, filed August 23, 2011 (Doc. 95), is denied.