Skinner v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company et al

Filing 22

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 21 Motion for Reconsideration; the Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/12/12.(REW)

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

Eric J. Skinner,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company;)
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems)
Incorporated (MERS),
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

No. 11-CV-710-PHX-GMS
ORDER

16
17
18

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.1 (Doc. 21). For the
reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

19

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented

20

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

21

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist.

22

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A

23

motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had

24

already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing,

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s motion is entitled “Motion for New Trial.” (Doc. 21). The essence of
Plaintiff’s motion, however, is that the Court erred in granting Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss. (See Doc. 19). The Court therefore treats Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for
reconsideration.

1

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be directed to the

2

court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).

3

Plaintiff raises no argument in his motion for reconsideration that he did not raise earlier.

4

(See Doc. 21). Instead, Plaintiff essentially asks the court to rethink its decision. (Id.).

5

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore denied.

6

Plaintiff further asserts that the Court erred by not granting his request for oral

7

argument. (Doc. 21 at 12). The Court did not grant oral argument, however, because the

8

Court determined that oral argument would not aid in its decision. See Lake at Las Vegas

9

Investors Group v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.
21) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.
DATED this 12th day of January, 2012.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-