Coronel v. GEICO Insurance Agency Incorporated

Filing 129

ORDER denying 120 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, denying 126 Defendant's motion for the court to reconsider its position on Plaintiff's bad faith claim. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 7/31/2013.(LMR)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Katherine Coronel, 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 GEICO Ins. Agency Inc., 13 Defendant. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-12-795-PHX-SMM ORDER 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 120) and 16 Defendant’s Response (Doc. 126), regarding this Court’s Order of June 27, 2013 (Doc. 116). 17 In Plaintiff’s motion, she moves the Court to reconsider its decision that New York law 18 governs her Uninsured Motorist (UM) claim. She agrees, however, with the Court’s position 19 that Arizona law applies to her bad faith claim. In contrast, in Defendant’s Response, GECIO 20 agrees with the Court’s decision regarding Plaintiff’s UM claim, but asks the Court to 21 reconsider as to the bad faith claim and determine that this claim is governed by New York 22 law as well. 23 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders 24 of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “Reconsideration is 25 appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidnece, (2) 26 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 27 intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, 28 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used for the purpose of 1 asking a court “ ‘to rethink what the court had already thought through--rightly or wrongly.’ 2 ” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. At 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. V. Mel 3 Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99. F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. VA 1983)). The Court ordinarily will 4 deny “a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a 5 showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention 6 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1). 7 Plaintiff continues to try and argue that Arizona law should apply simply because 8 Arizona was where the accident took place. This argument, which would generally be true, 9 fails in this instance due to the presence of the valid choice-of-law provision. As for 10 Defendant’s argument that New York law should also govern Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, 11 GEICO states that Arizona does not have a materially greater interest than New York in this 12 dispute. This is not true. Arizona’s interest to protect the Plaintiff, its resident, from the 13 tortious conduct of an out of state insurance company far outweighs the interests of New 14 York in this case. 15 Here, the Parties simply fail to meet the standard required to grant a motion for 16 reconsideration. The Court finds no manifest error in its previous Order. Further, neither 17 party has presented new facts or authority. Therefore, Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g), the 18 Court will deny the Parties’ Motions for Reconsideration. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 21 120.) New York law will apply to Plaintiff’s UM Claim. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant’s motion for the Court to 23 reconsider its position on Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. (Doc. 126.) Arizona law will govern 24 Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. 25 DATED this 31st day of July, 2013. 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?