Labate v. Casa Grande, City of

Filing 26

ORDER that Plaintiff's 25 Motion to Reconsider is denied. This case is to remain closed. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 12/14/11.(ESL)

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 Second Motion for Reconsideration of the order
dismissing this case. (Doc. 25). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND

18
19

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

20

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

21

dismissal order. (Doc. 21).

22

DISCUSSION

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7
8

Plaintiff states that he has new witnesses prepared to testify on his behalf. (Doc. 25).

9

His suit was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; he offers no argument

10

suggesting that jurisdiction was in fact proper. He brings no argument pursuant to any of the

11

four grounds upon which an order may be reconsidered under Rule 59(e). Should he continue

12

to file frivolous motions, he will be subject to sanctions.

13
14
15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25) is
denied. This case is to remain closed.
DATED this 14th day of December, 2011.

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

-2-