Kane et al v. Bosco et al

Filing 23

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the 20 Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction is denied. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 9/10/10. (SAT)

Kane et al v. Bosco et al

Doc. 23

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

Peter Kane; Diane Kane, Plaintiffs, vs. Michael A. Bosco, Jr.; et al., Defendants.

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

No. CV 10-1787-PHX-JAT ORDER

On August 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for temporary restraining order seeking to stop a Trustee sale of their house, which they said was set for August 30, 2010. Doc. 13. Because the undersigned could not hear the motion by the 30th, another Judge was drawn, and on August 27, 2010, Judge Snow entered an Order denying the request for a temporary restraining order. Doc. 17. On September 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed another emergency motion for temporary restraining order seeking to stop the Trustee sale of their house, which they now say is set for September 13, 2010. Doc. 20. In this second motion, Plaintiffs do not show any change in circumstances since Judge Snow's order, nor argue any reason why Judge Snow's order was incorrect. Thus, Plaintiffs have effectively filed a motion for reconsideration of Judge

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Snow's Order, but have failed to show any basis justifying reconsideration.1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 20) is denied. DATED this 10th day of September, 2010.

To obtain reconsideration of a non-final order, the moving party must show: (1) There are material differences in fact or law from that presented to the Court and, at the time of the Court's decision, the party moving for reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal differences through reasonable diligence; (2) There are new material facts that happened after the Court's decision; (3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted after the Court's decision; or (4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court's decision. No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). -2-

1