Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

*—;s2§g 2
I "" ` `1 D -.. pv
‘ {-?('1i°$§§’§'§§‘“ SEP 1 5 M
2 Salome, AZ. 85348 CLE? {lf? D!ST{;g;j- ,
,3,. * —»·;· » ~<¤>z· cz. · A if -'
3 ww., .;Y.Q`fj'j_j;j;:_j_-;j:i:i;F’_§;;1_` 1{
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
6
7 James W. Field, ) Case No.: CV03—22l4—PHX-SKB
8 Plaintiff, i PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION T0
) DEFENDANTS Z"' MOTION FOR
9 vs. ) RECONSIDERATION
10 Brad Weekley et. al., l
11 Defendant l
13 Comes now Plaintiff, James W. Field, Objecting to Defendants 2nd Motion for
14 Reconsideration. In the Memorandum of Points and Authorities below Plaintiff has more fully set
15 forth reasons why Defendants motion should be denied.
16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
17 Plaintiff} James W. Field, Objects to and moves this court to deny Defendants 2"° Motion for
18 Reconsideration As the Court has previously stated, Reconsideration is only appropriate it? (1) the
19 court is presented with newly discovered, previously unavailable evidence; (2) the court committed a
20 clear error of law and the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening
21 change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. IJ; Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
22 1262 (9"' Cir. 1993); United States ex rel Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety
23 Co. 1991 WL 495733 *1 (D. Ariz. 1991).
24 Motions for reconsideration can not be used to ask the Court "to rethink what the court has
25 already thought through," Above the Belt, Inc. v. Me! Bohannan Roofing, Inc. 999 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.
Case 2:03—cv—02214—SF1B Document 260l“ Filed O9/15/2006 Page 1 of 2

1 D. Va. 1983); See Refrigeration Sales Co. 605 F.Supp. at 8 Disagreements should be dealt with in the
2 normal appellate process, not on a motion for reconsideration. Database Am., Inc. 825 F. Supp. At
3 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., 605 F.Supp. at 7.
4 The Court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear
5 error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Database Am., Inc. 825 F. Supp. At 1220; Refrigeration
6 Sales C0., Inc. 605 F Supp. At 7,
7 Plaintiff brings to the Attention of the Court that this is the 2"d Motion for reconsideration
8 these Defendants have brought before the Court, the first one was denied, as this one should be.
9 Plaintiff prays the Court deny Defendants Motion, and Further Order a New Trial Date to be
I0 set affording Mr. Field opportunity to present his case to yet another Jury.
11 Respectfully Submitted this /? 4 day of September 2006.
12 M `
Se Plaintiff James W. Field
1
ORIGINAL and One Copy ofthe foregoing
I4 Filed this g£g·l"’¤ day of September 2006 with '
15 Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Courthouse
Suite 130
16 401 w. washington st. SPCI
17 Phx. AZ. 85003.
18 A Copy of the foregoing sent
This [{*5 day of September 2006 to
19 Jones, Skelton & Hochuli
20 2901 N. Centra} Ave.
Suite 800
21 Phx. AZ. 85012
22 Gaona Law Firm
3101 N. Central Ave.
Phx. AZ. 85012
24
Br
25 Tammy Doud Plaintiff s Assistant
i Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 26Cf` Filed O9/15/2006 Page 2 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 260

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB

Document 260

Filed 09/15/2006

Page 2 of 2