G. PORTEOUS, District Judge
Before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider And/Or Motion in the Alternative to Certify the Judgment (Doc. 17) filed on behalf of the Defendants, Seven Arts Pictures, Inc., Asylum Productions UK Limited and Peter Hoffman. This matter was submitted for the Court's consideration with oral argument on December 29, 2004. The Court, having reviewed the arguments of counsel, the Court record, the law and applicable jurisprudence, is fully advised on the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND
This action arises out of a loan ("Loan") made between Too Easy, a Louisiana limited liability company whose sole member is professional basketball star, Baron Davis, and Defendants. The Loan was made pursuant to a loan agreement dated August 18, 2003. Too Easy's registered agent and attorney who negotiated the terms of the agreement is Daniel Davillier, an attorney at the New Orleans law firm of Phelps Dunbar. Seven Arts Pictures, Inc. and Asylum Productions UK Limited are both corporations with their principal place of business in Beverly Hills, California. Peter Hoffman is a resident of California who also owns property in New Orleans.
Pursuant to the agreement, Too Easy loaned defendants $1,505,000.00 for actual production expenses in the motion picture entitled "Asylum." Seven Arts and Asylum Productions agreed, inter alia, to repay the loan by December 31, 2003. Thus far, no repayments have been made. In addition to the Loan Agreement, Too Easy executed a Personal Guaranty with Hoffman in which Hoffman guaranteed "full and prompt repayment of the Loan."
On November 3, 2004, this Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Transfer.
II. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Reconsider
Defendants rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for their Motion to Reconsider. Under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a district court enjoys considerable discretion in granting or denying a motion for reconsideration. See, First Commonwealth Corp. v. Hibernia Nat. Bank of New Orleans, 891 F.Supp. 290 (E.D.La. 1995), amended 896 F.Supp. 634, affirmed 85 F.3d 622. There are three grounds upon which a Court may grant a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration or to alter or amend the judgment: (1) intervening change in the controlling law has occurred, (2) evidence not previously available becomes available, or (3) it is necessary to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Database America, Inc. v. Bellsouth Advertising Pub. Corp. 825 F.Supp. 1216 (D.N.J. 1993).
Under Rule 59, any motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. Judgment was entered on November 3, 2004. Defendants did not file their Motion to Reconsider until November 24, 2004. Therefore, Defendants have not met the ten day requirement. Accordingly, their motion is untimely under Rule 59.
Since Defendants filed their Motion to Reconsider more than 10 days after this Court's November 3, 2004 Order, it is considered a Rule 60(b) motion. Rule 60 sets forth six reasons why a Court may "relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding." Defendants' motion contains no discussion of any of the Rule 60(b) factors, nor how those factors apply to this Court's November 3, 2004 Order. Even if Defendants had identified the correct Federal Rule, the motion would still fail for reasons stated in the November 3, 2004 Order.
B. Motion to Certify
Defendants also ask this Court to certify the November 3, 2004 Order as appealable pursuant to 28 USC § 1292(b). Under 28 USC 1292(b), an order may be certified as appealable only if the order (1) involves a "controlling question of law," (2) about which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, (3) that an immediate appeal would "materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation." Ryan, Beck Fakih, 275 F.Supp.2d 393, 396 (E.D.N.Y. 2003).
Defendants' motion to transfer will not affect the substantive issues; it only concerns the place where the substantive issues will be litigated. In addition, defendants' motion will not in anyway advance the termination of the litigation. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Reconsider be, and the same is hereby, DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants' Motion to Certify the Judgment be, and the same is hereby, DENIED,