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)

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-