Free Order on Motion to Amend/Correct - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA U-Haul International, Inc., et al, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, ) ) Defendant/Counter-Claimant. ) _________________________________ ) ) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, ) ) Defendant/Counter-Claimant, ) ) vs. ) ) U-Haul International, Inc., et al, ) ) Counter-Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) No. CV 04-0662 PHX-DGC ORDER

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company ("LMC") has filed a Motion for Amended and Additional Findings, Motion for Amendment of Judgment, and Motion for a New Trial. Dkt. #172, 173. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants U-Haul International, Inc. and Republic Western Insurance Company (collectively, "U-Haul") have filed a response. Dkt. #183. LMC has filed a reply. Dkt. #186. The Court will deny LMC's motion. This case has seen more briefing, re-briefing, and re-argument of issues than any case in the Court's memory. The Court initially granted partial summary judgment to U-Haul almost one year ago. This ruling has been followed by a number of efforts to re-argue matters already decided. LMC's present motion constitutes one more effort in this ongoing
Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 189 Filed 05/30/2007 Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pattern. The Court held a bench trial in this matter on March 7, 2007. Prior to the trial, the parties submitted extensive deposition testimony and voluminous written exhibits. Live testimony and extended oral arguments were heard during the bench trial. After carefully considering this evidence, the Court entered judgment in favor of U-Haul. Dkt. #162. LMC's motion asks the Court to reconsider virtually every significant finding that resulted from the bench trial and the essential conclusions from the summary judgment ruling. LMC does not present new evidence that previously was unavailable, does not assert an intervening change in controlling law, and has failed to persuade the Court that its previous findings and conclusions were erroneous. The purpose of post-judgment motions under Rules 52(b) and 59 is to give the Court an opportunity to correct manifest errors of law or fact, allow the parties to present newly discovered evidence, take additional testimony, make additional findings, or take other action in the interests of justice. "This is not to say, however, that a motion to amend should be employed . . . to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the merits." Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978). LMC's motion seeks to relitigate issues thoroughly briefed, argued, and decided in the past. The time has come to conclude this case. All of LMC's and U-Haul's arguments have been considered carefully. The Court has made its decision. The Court will not revisit and reconsider that decision on the basis of nothing more than LMC's assertion of arguments already made and rejected. IT IS ORDERED that LMC's Motion for Amended and Additional Findings, Motion for Amendment of Judgment, and Motion for New Trial (Dkt. #172) is denied. DATED this 30th day of May, 2007.

-2-

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC

Document 189

Filed 05/30/2007

Page 2 of 2