Liberty Life Insurance Company v. Myers et al
ORDER denying 286 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/17/2013.(VPB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Liberty Life Insurance Company,
No. CV 10-2024-PHX-JAT
Eric LungMyers, et al.,
Pending before the Court is pro se Defendant Eric LungMyers’ (“Defendant”)
Motion “Seeking Court Clarification Regarding the Court’s Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 286).
On February 11, 2013, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for
partial summary judgment (Doc. 280). On March 12, 2013, Defendant filed the pending
motion seeking clarification of the order (Doc. 286). Defendant’s motion essentially asks
the Court to further explain the conclusions reached in the order.
explained the basis for its analysis in the order and will deny Defendant’s motion to
explain again. To the extent Defendant’s motion is a motion for reconsideration, the
Court will also deny Defendant’s motion.
The Court fully
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a
“motion to reconsider.” A litigant subject to an adverse
judgment may file either a motion to alter or amend the
judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the
judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60(b).
However, these rules only provide relief from judgments that
are “final, appealable orders.” United States v. Martin, 226
F.3d 1042, 1048 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000).
Campbell v. Fernando-Sholes, CV 05-0880-PHX-SMM, 2009 WL 2030561, at *3 (D.
Ariz. July 9, 2009). This Court has adopted the following standards on which motions for
reconsideration will be granted for interlocutory orders:
(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
(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. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Defendant’s motion simply repeats the same arguments made in his response to
Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and Defendant has made no showing of
the other factors.
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Eric LungMyer’s Motion seeking Court
Clarification (Doc. 286) is denied.
Dated this 17th day of September, 2013.
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?