United States of America v. Toyota Sequoia 2005, VIN:5TDZT38AX5S239010

Filing 29

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 25 Motion to Reconsider to the limited extent set out in this Order and Denying the Motion to Reconsider in all other respects. It is further ordered Denying Plaintiff's 27 First Motion for Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 06/30/11. (ESL)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

United States of America,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
2005
Toyota
S e q u o i a ,)
VIN:5TDZT38AX5S239010,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)

No. CV 09-2012-PHX-JAT
ORDER

16
Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Strike Claim and
17
Answer of Mukhtiar Singh on July 14, 2010. (Doc. 21.) The Court denied that Motion on
18
October 25, 2010, finding Mukhtiar Singh (the “Claimant”) has standing to assert a claim to
19
the 2005 Toyota Sequoia the Plaintiff seeks to forfeit. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to
20
Reconsider the Court’s Order on November 8, 2010. (Doc. 25.) The Court did not order the
21
Claimant to file a response to the Motion for Reconsideration. L.R.Civ.P.7.2(g)(2)(“No
22
response to a motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless
23

ordered by the Court . . ..”).1

24
25
1

26
27
28

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 27) based on Claimant’s
failure to respond to the Motion for Reconsideration. But, as set out above, Claimant was
not allowed to file a response to the motion to reconsider absent an Order from this Court.
L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(2). The Court therefore denies the Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc.
27).

1

I.

2

Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: 1) the movant presents

3

newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was

4

manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred. School Dist.

5

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions

6

for reconsideration are disfavored, and parties should not use them to make arguments not

7

raised in their original briefs. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, Inc.,

8

215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D.Ariz.2003)(citing Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

9

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988)). Nor should a party file a motion to reconsider

10

to ask the Court “to rethink what it has already thought.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

11

“No motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made

12

by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.”

13

L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). The Court ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration “absent

14

a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

15

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

Legal Standard

16

II.

17

Plaintiff makes several new arguments in its Motion to Reconsider, primarily

18

arguments regarding statutory standing and prudential standing. Plaintiff has not indicated

19

an intervening change in the law since the Court’s Order and offers no reason why it could

20

not have made these arguments in its original Motion to Strike. As set out above, parties

21

cannot use motions to reconsider to make arguments not raised in their original briefs.

22

Motorola, 215 F.R.D. at 582. The Court therefore will not address these new arguments.

Analysis and Conclusion

23

Regarding the Court’s ruling on Claimant’s Article III standing, Plaintiff makes some

24

of the same arguments it made in the Motion to Strike. To the extent Plaintiff’s Article III

25

arguments in the motion to reconsider are repetitions of its earlier written arguments in

26

support of the Motion to Strike, the Court will ignore the repetitions. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1).

27

The Court further holds that it did not commit clear error in finding that Claimant has Article

28

III standing in this civil forfeiture action. See, e.g., U.S. v. Real Property Located at 475
-2-

1

Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008)(To demonstrate Article

2

III standing in a civil forfeiture action a claimant need “demonstrate only a colorable interest

3

in the forfeited property, for example, by showing actual possession, control, title, or

4

financial stake.”)(emphasis added).

5

Nor does the Court find that it made any other clear legal errors in its October 25,

6

2010 Order. And allowing Claimant to maintain his claim to the 2005 Toyota Sequoia was

7

not “manifestly unjust.” Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or

8

indicated a change in controlling law.

9

The Court, however, will grant the Motion to Reconsider to a very limited extent to

10

clarify a portion of its Order, but will not grant any of the relief requested by Plaintiff. On

11

page 3 of the October 25, 2010 Order, in recounting the background facts, the Court stated

12

that the criminal defendant “together with his wife, Claimant’s daughter, paid off a large

13

portion of the loan . . .” (Doc. 23, 3:10-12.) The Court clarifies that the wife to whom the

14

Court referred in this sentence of its Order is Davinder Kaur, wife of the criminal defendant

15

Parminder S. Toor, and daughter of the Claimant. So, the Court’s sentence conveys that the

16

criminal defendant and his wife, Davinder Kaur, paid off a large portion of the car loan and

17

made payments toward the insurance policy on Claimant’s behalf.

18

The Court denies the Motion to Reconsider in all other respects.

19

Accordingly,

20

IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25) to the limited

21
22
23
24

extent set out in this Order and Denying the Motion to Reconsider in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Plaintiff’s First Motion for Judgment
Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 27).
DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.

25
26
27
28
-3-