Grady et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al
ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 50 Motion for Reconsideration; granting Plaintiffs' 51 Motion for Extension of Time to the limited extent that Plaintiffs shall have 5 days from the date of this Order to file a Second Amended Complaint that co mplies with the Court's 4/4/12 Order 47 ; if Plaintiffs do not file a Second Amended Complaint within that time, the Clerk will dismiss this case without further notice for failure to obey a court order. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 5/21/12. (REW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Michael Grady and
husband and wife,,
Bank of Elmwood; et al.,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Doc. 50) on May 1, 2012.
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of portions of the Court’s Order (Doc. 47) disposing of
their Motion to Amend (Doc. 10). Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred: 1) in
finding Plaintiffs cannot state claims against TCNB, the purchasing bank, for TILA
violations committed by the failed bank and 2) in denying Plaintiffs leave to amend to
state direct TILA claims against TCNB.
Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: 1) the movant
presents newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has
occurred. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A party should not file a motion to reconsider to ask a court “to
rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt,
Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983). “No motion for
reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support
of or in opposition to the original motion.”
Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech.
Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003); L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). The Court
ordinarily will deny a “motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of
manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been
brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1).
In their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs do not cite any intervening,
controlling authority. They direct the Court’s attention to a District of Hawaii case from
January of 2012. But the Court is not bound by decisions from the District of Hawaii.
Plaintiffs cite no new authority from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Basically, Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s earlier ruling and re-argue points
they previously made in their Motion to Amend. Parties should not use motions for
reconsideration to re-argue or to more strongly argue points previously made in the
Because Plaintiffs have not cited any intervening, controlling authority and
because the Court finds it did not clearly err in its April 4, 2012 Order,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time
(Doc. 51) to the limited extent that Plaintiffs shall have five (5) days from the date of this
Order to file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the Court’s April 4, 2012
Order (Doc. 47). If Plaintiffs do not file a Second Amended Complaint within that time,
the Clerk will dismiss this case without further notice for failure to obey a court order.
Dated this 21st day of May, 2012.
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?