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)

Download PDF
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-

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?