Labate v. Casa Grande, City of

Filing 24

ORDER denying 23 Motion for Reconsideration. This case is to remain closed. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/5/11.(DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Pasquale Labate, Jr.,

10

Plaintiff,

11

vs.

12
City of Casa Grande,
13
Defendant.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-1434-PHX-GMS
ORDER

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the order
dismissing this case. (Doc. 23). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

18

This case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 17, 2011.

19

The background facts in the case and the reasons for the dismissal are provided in the

20

dismissal order. (Doc. 21).

21

Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four

22

grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

23

judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable

24

evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening

25

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063

26

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are

27

disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

28

briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d

1

918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the

2

court has already thought through – rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32

3

F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

4

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).

5

Plaintiff’s motion reads, in its entirety, “Plaintiff/Pasquale Labate Motion for

6

Reconsideration to review and re-instate Plaintiff law suit against City of Casa Grande.

7

Defendant’s Plaintiff justice request and justice for all is my father who challenge the ivil.”

8

[sic] (Doc. 23). Plaintiff raises none of the four issues appropriate for a motion to reconsider,

9

and the motion is therefore denied.

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 23) is
denied. This case is to remain closed.
DATED this 5th day of December, 2011.

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

-2-