Hillis, et al v. Heineman, et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying 88 Motion for New Trial; denying 89 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall not file a response to the motion for reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/18/2009.(NVO)

Download PDF
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 Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband and wife, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L. ) Heineman, husband and wife; Barbara L. ) Heineman, Trustee of the Year 2002 ) Revocable Trust Dated August 16, 2002; ) and Gregory Bartko, ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) ) Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L. ) Heineman, husband and wife; and ) Gregory Bartko, ) ) Counter-Plaintiffs and ) Third-Party Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband ) and wife; and John Raymond Fox, ) ) Counter-Defendants and ) Third-Party Defendant. ) _________________________________ ) No. CV-09-0073-PHX-DGC ORDER On July 23, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Dkt. #85. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of that order pursuant to Rule 7.2(g) of the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #87. Plaintiffs also have 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 filed a motion to amend findings of fact and for a new trial pursuant to Rules 52 and 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #88. The Court made no findings of fact in the order of dismissal, and no trial has occurred in this case. The Court will therefore deny Plaintiffs' motion to amend findings and for a new trial. Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs' motions. Dkt. #89. The motion is moot with respect to Plaintiffs' motion to amend findings and for a new trial. The Court concludes that no response is necessary with respect to the motion for reconsideration. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) (no response to a motion for reconsideration may be filed absent leave of court). Defendants' motion for extension of time will be denied. IT IS ORDERED: 1. 2. 3. Plaintiffs' motion to amend findings and for a new trial (Dkt. #88) is denied. Defendants' motion for extension of time (Dkt. #89) is denied. Defendants shall not file a response to the motion for reconsideration. DATED this 18th day of August, 2009. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?