United States of America v. Vistoso Partners, L.L.C.

Filing 94

ORDER denying 91 Defendant's Motion for New Trial and denying 91 Motion to Amend/Correct Judgment. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 6/20/12.(DMT)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 United States of America, Plaintiff, 10 11 vs. 12 Vistoso Partners, LLC, 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-10-444-PHX-GMS ORDER 15 16 On January 3, 2012, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in 17 this action. (Doc. 85). On January 17, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of 18 the Court’s January 3 decision, which the Court denied. (Docs. 88, 89). On February 7, 2012 19 the Court formally entered judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 90). Pending before the Court 20 is Defendant’s motion for a new trial and to alter and amend the judgment, pursuant to 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) and 59(e). (Doc. 91). 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) provides that: “After a nonjury trial, the 23 court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take 24 additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and 25 direct the entry of a new judgment.” Rule 59(e) reads: “A motion to alter or amend a 26 judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Court will 27 grant a Rule 59 motion only if the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, 28 (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 1 intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. 2 ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not 3 be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or 4 wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 5 1983)). 6 Defendant’s motion is in essence a request for the court to rethink what the court has 7 already thought through. (See Doc. 91). Such requests should be directed to the court of 8 appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992). 9 10 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Combined Motion for a New Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 91) is DENIED. 11 DATED this 20th day of June, 2012. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -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?