Johnson v. Teltara LLC et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying 43 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 8/16/10.(DMT)

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

Joann Johnson, Plaintiff, vs. Teltara, LLC, Defendant.

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

No. CV 08-1894-PHX-JAT ORDER

Plaintiff Joann Johnson has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 43) of the Court's July 20, 2010 Order granting summary judgment to Defendant. Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: 1) the movant presents newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court ordinarily will deny "a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1). The Court finds no grounds for reconsidering its earlier Order. Plaintiff has not presented any new evidence that she could not have presented in her response to the motion for summary judgment and has not pointed to a change in controlling law since the Court issued its Order. Nor does the Court find that it committed clear error or that the decision

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

was manifestly unjust. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 43). DATED this 16th day of August, 2010.

-2-