Regional Care Services Corporation, et al v. Companion Life Insurance Company

Filing 133

ORDER denying 117 Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 118 Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company's Motion to Withdraw Admission. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lawrence O Anderson on 6/8/12.(LSP)

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
16
17

Regional Care Services Corporation, an)
Arizona corporation; Regional Care)
Services Corporation Health and Welfare)
)
Employee Benefit Plan,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Companion Life Insurance Company,
)
)
Defendant.
)

No. CV-10-2597-PHX-LOA
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Companion Life

18

Insurance Company (“Companion”) for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 117, and Motion to Withdraw Admission,

20

doc. 118, both filed on May 8, 2012. Companion requests oral argument on both motions.

21

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g)(2), the Court ordered briefing on the motion for reconsider-

22

ation which the parties have filed. (Doc. 125, 130) Because both motions are fully and

23

thoroughly briefed, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary. See Mahon v. Credit

24

Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999).

25

1. Motion for Reconsideration

26

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) governs motions for reconsideration and

27

states, inter alia, that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an

28

Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that

1

could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

2

Although Companion’s motion for reconsideration includes a thorough discussion

3

of this case and the order at issue, Companion has not shown “manifest error” or

4

presented “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s]

5

attention earlier with reasonable diligence” that would change the Court’s ruling on the

6

motion for summary judgment. See LRCiv 7.2(g). Accordingly, the Court will deny

7

Companion’s motion for reconsideration.

8

2. Motion to Withdraw Admission

9

In a separate motion, Companion moves to withdraw its admission concerning Dr.

10

Gietzen’s status as an eligible participant under the Regional Care Services Corporation

11

Health and Welfare Employee Benefit Plan, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). (Doc. 118)

12

Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to which Companion has replied.

13

(Docs. 126, 131) For the reasons set forth in the Court’s April 24, 2012 Order granting

14

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 116 at 4-6, in which the Court speci-

15

fically addressed the Rule 36(b) issue, the Court will deny Companion’s motion. Nothing

16

in Companion’s belated motion to withdraw changes the Court’s prior analysis of that

17

issue.

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company’s Motion

20

for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

21

Judgment, doc. 117, is DENIED.

22
23
24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance
Company’s Motion to Withdraw Admission, doc. 118, is DENIED.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2012.

25
26
27
28
-2-