Opinion ID: 171597
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mr. Whitehead's Motion to Reconsider the Denial of Attorney Fees

Text: After the district court denied Mr. Whitehead's motion for attorney fees, Mr. Whitehead filed a motion to reconsider and a revised motion for attorney fees. The district court denied both. Regarding the motion to reconsider, the district court characterized it as in large part, a list of excuses why [the] initial motion for attorney fees was not filed in a timely manner. App. at 320. Noting that the motion to reconsider did not address the remainder of the court's prior ruling, the district court restated and reapplied the alternative bases for dismissing the initial motion. As a result, the district court did not find inadvertent error or excusable neglect. Regarding the revised motion for attorney fees, the district court denied the motion as untimely. Mr. Whitehead appeals the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
We review for abuse of discretion the district court's denial of a motion for reconsideration. Elephant Butte Irrigation Dist. of N.M. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 538 F.3d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir.2008) (citing Geddes v. United Staffing Alliance Employee Med. Plan, 469 F.3d 919, 928 (10th Cir.2006)). A district court abuses its discretion where it commits a legal error or relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, or where there is no rational basis in the evidence for its ruling. Nova Health Sys. v. Edmondson, 460 F.3d 1295, 1299 (10th Cir.2006).
Mr. Whitehead filed his motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). In pertinent part, this rule allows a court to relieve a party from an order for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). Such relief is extraordinary and may be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Beugler v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 490 F.3d 1224, 1229 (10th Cir.2007) (quotation omitted). Mr. Whitehead argues that the district court did not properly apply Rule 60(b) because the court did not consider key facts. The facts Mr. Whitehead cites relate to the timing of the filing of the initial motion for attorney fees. As stated, the district court wrongly determined that the initial motion was untimely. On the other hand, at least one of the district court's alternative basesdiscrepancies between the summary of attorney fees and the detailed time entrieswas a valid justification for denying the initial motion. None of Mr. Whitehead's arguments on appeal, or in his motion for reconsideration, addresses those concerns. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider.