Free Order on Motion for Reconsideration - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 County of La Paz, et al. 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 258 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James W. Field, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV03-2214-PHX-SRB ORDER

The Court has received and considered Defendants Weekley and Gorman's Motion for Reconsideration and Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Reconsideration is only appropriate if: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered, previously unavailable, evidence; (2) the court committed a clear error of law and the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993);United States ex rel Conveyor Rental & Sales Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 1991 WL 495733, *1 (D. Ariz. 1991). Such a motion, however, may not be used to re-litigate old matters or to raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised prior to entry of judgment. See, e.g., Fed. Deposit Ins. Agency v. World Univ., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992); accord Backlund, 778 F.2d at 1388; 1 Wright, Miller, & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2810.1 at 127-28.

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 Defendants do not allege that the controlling law has changed since this Court rendered its initial decision. Rather, they argue that the Court erred in its interpretation of both the law and the facts of this case. Motions for reconsideration can not be used to ask the Court "to rethink what the court has already thought through," merely because Defendants disagrees with the Court's decision. Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983); See Refrigeration Sales Co. 605 F.Supp. at 8. Such disagreements should be dealt with in the normal appellate process, not on a motion for reconsideration. Database Am., Inc. 825 F.Supp. at 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc. 605 F.Supp. at 7. This case does not fall within one of those narrow instances where reconsideration is appropriate. The moving party must show more than a disagreement with the court's decision; the court should not grant a motion for reconsideration unless there is need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice. Database Am., Inc. 825 F.Supp. at 1220; Refrigeration Sales Co., Inc., 605 F.Supp. at 7. The Court finds that Defendants have failed to set forth sufficient grounds to cause the Court to reconsider its August 3, 2006 order. IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants Weekley and Gorman's Motion for Reconsideration and Rule 50(b) Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. (doc. 253).

DATED this 13th day of September, 2006.

-2Case 2:03-cv-02214-SRB Document 258 Filed 09/14/2006 Page 2 of 2