Xcentric Ventures LLC v. Borodkin et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying the 57 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 04/02/12.(ESL)

Download PDF
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 Xcentric Ventures LLC, an Arizona) limited liability company, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ) Lisa Jean Borodkin; Daniel Blackert; Asia) Economic Institute LLC; Raymond) Mobrez; Iliana Llaneras; Does 1-10,) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV-11-1426-PHX-GMS ORDER 16 17 On March 1, 2012, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 52) denying Defendants’ Motion 18 to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 18) and Motion to Dismiss for Improper 19 Venue or to Transfer (Doc. 17). On March 20, 2012, Defendant Mobrez1 submitted the 20 instant Motion for Reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its March 1 denial 21 of Defendants’ motions. (Doc. 57). Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if 22 the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 23 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling 24 law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 25 26 27 28 1 The Motion for Reconsideration is signed by both Defendant Mobrez and Defendant Llaneras. (See Doc. 57). Defendant Llaneras, however, is currently represented by counsel, and her counsel did not sign the Motion for Reconsideration. (See id.). The Court will therefore consider the motion as one brought solely by Defendant Mobrez. 1 Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what 2 the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel 3 Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.1983)). 4 In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants have not presented new evidence, 5 identified clear error or manifest injustice, or identified a change in the law. (See Doc. 57). 6 As Defendants noted in their motions to dismiss, Edward Magedson, Plaintiff’s manager, 7 sent Defendant an email on July 24, 2009 in which he stated “I am in California, I live here 8 now.” (Doc. 18-4, Ex. A). This does not change the fact, however, that in April and May 9 2009, Defendants called Xcentric, an Arizona LLC, at its Arizona phone number multiple 10 times in alleged furtherance of a malicious lawsuit. Nor does Magedson’s possible California 11 residency change the fact that Defendants filed the allegedly malicious lawsuit against 12 Magedson’s Arizona LLC, traveled to Arizona for settlement discussions with Magedson and 13 sent attorneys to Arizona to depose him. In essence, Defendants’ motion is a request for the 14 Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through. It is therefore denied. 15 To be sure, the Court has a strong interest in ensuring that it has subject matter 16 jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(3) (“If the court determines at any 17 time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); The 18 Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884) (holding that a federal court’s 19 subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, and that the 20 court may raise this issue sua sponte). Nonetheless, even were the Court to find that 21 Magedson is now a citizen of California, this would not affect the Court’s subject matter 22 jurisdiction. The Complaint alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 23 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “there is complete diversity among the parties.” (Doc. 55, ¶ 9). For 24 the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its 25 owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 26 899 (9th Cir. 2006). Xcentric is an LLC with only one owner/member, namely CBIC—a 27 Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada. (See Doc. 21). Even 28 though Magedson, an alleged California citizen, is CBIC’s sole shareholder, CBIC is a -2- 1 corporation, not an LLC. And “a corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its 2 principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated.” Johnson, 3 437 F.3d 894, 899 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). None of the Defendants contend that they 4 are citizens of Nevada. Consequently the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action. 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 57). 6 DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?