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)

Download PDF
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-

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?