Free Order on Motion to Stay - 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 Plaintiff's Motion was filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, which provides that a motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment. Excluding weekends in the computation pursuant to Rule 6, Plaintiff's motion, if brought pursuant to Rule 59(e), should have been filed on or before April 17, 2006. Because it exceeds the 10 day deadline, the Court will construe it as a Motion For Reconsideration under Rule 60.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wyvonna M. Barnett,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Bashas, Inc., Mesa General Hospital) Medical Center, et al., ) ) Defendant. ) )

No. CV 03-2566-PHX-ROS ORDER

On March 31, 2006, the Court granted Defendant Mesa General Hospital Medical Center's ("Mesa General") Motion To Dismiss (Doc. #114). The Clerk of Court entered a judgment in favor of Mesa General, which is the only remaining Defendant, dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 11, 2006 Plaintiff filed a Motion To Stay Entry of Judgment.1 For the reasons set forth below, this Motion will be denied.

Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS

Document 118

Filed 05/19/2006

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

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its orders. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from an order may be granted only "upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief." School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. & Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that party must show "extraordinary circumstances" to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6)). Plaintiff's motion is merely a recitation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 and provides no grounds warranting relief. As a result, the motion is denied.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion To Stay Execution of Judgment is DENIED.

DATED this 18th day of May, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02566-ROS Document 118 Filed 05/19/2006 Page 2 of 2