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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Mark August's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #141). For the following reasons, the motion will be denied. Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its order of judgment against him under Rule 54(b). He asks the Court to stay the entering of final judgment against him until the entire action is completed. 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) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)).
Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 182 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Teresa August, et al., Plaintiffs, vs.

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

No. 03-1892-PHX-ROS ORDER

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Rule 54(b) states: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. Citing Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc. v. Archer, Plaintiff argues that since the rule states

10 that when a final judgment is entered against only one of multiple Plaintiffs, the Court must 11 make specific findings to support the conclusion that there "no just reason for delay" in 12 13 2006 Order did not make these specific findings, Plaintiffs argue that the entering of final 14 judgment against him under Rule 54(b) is inappropriate. 15 This Court, however, does not have to make such findings before entering final 16 judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b). See Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. Carlsberg Financial Corp., 17 18 The Court also rejects Plaintiff's other arguments, including (1) justice is not served 19 by Rule 54(b) certification, (2) judicial efficiency is not served by Rule 54(b) certification, 20 and (3) Rule 54(b) certification does not facilitate settlement of the remainder of the claims. 21 As Defendants point out, Plaintiff Mark August's claims are separate from those of Theresa 22 August's claims. His claims for unlawful detainment, while stemming from events that were 23 proximate in time to events that precipitated Theresa August's claims, do not stem from the 24 exact same events. His claims against the Defendant's are independent from those of Theresa 25 August and Rule 54(b) certification will not result in mootness or judicial repetition issues 26 on appeal 27 28
Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 182

entering judgment. 655 F.2d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 1981). Since this Court, in its October 11,

689 F.2d 815 (9th Cir. 1982).

-2Filed 11/29/2006 Page 2 of 3

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

Further, Plaintiff's argument that if Theresa August, his mother, receives either a favorable settlement or a substantial jury award, there will be no reason for his appeal is unpersuasive. Plaintiff's pecuniary motivations in pursuing his appeal are not relevant for Rule 54(b) purposes. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. DATED this 29th day of November, 2006.

-3Case 2:03-cv-01892-ROS Document 182 Filed 11/29/2006 Page 3 of 3