Rhodes v. Chavez et al
ORDER denying Plantiff's 22 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 7/24/13.(REW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
David Thomas Rhodes,
Ricardo E. Chavez, et. al.,
At a scheduling conference on May 29, 2013, the Court dismissed the action as to
Defendant Robert E. McFadden due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve. Doc. 17. Plaintiff has
filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 22. The Court will deny the motion.
Motions for reconsideration “are disfavored and will be granted only upon a
showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority which could not have been
raised earlier with reasonable diligence.” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted); see also S.E.C. v. Kuipers, 399 Fed.
Appx. 167, 170 (9th Cir. 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). Mere disagreement with an order is an
insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM
(ECV), 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor should a motion for
reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; Nw. Acceptance
Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).
Plaintiff submits that since the May 29, 2013, scheduling conference, he has
learned that “at the time of the hearing the U.S. Attorney knew where defendant
McFadden was located due to the fact that she had received a declaration from
McFadden, dated March 11, 2013.” Doc. 22 at 2. Plaintiff argues that because the
defense has submitted McFadden’s declaration in this action the defense “has
inadvertently entered McFadden into these proceedings regardless of the fact that the
Marshals Service was unable to perfect service of the Complaint.” Id. Plaintiff objects to
defense counsel’s failure to disclose information pertaining to Defendant McFadden’s
whereabouts. Id. Defendants respond by stating that defense counsel does not have
McFadden’s home address, that Plaintiff never sought discovery to obtain the address in
the eight months before McFadden was dismissed, and that the submission of a
declaration does not convert McFadden into a party. Doc. 26 at 2-3.
Plaintiff does not address the high standard governing motions for reconsideration.
The evidence about the McFadden declaration is not a new fact, and Plaintiff has not
shown that through the exercise of reasonable diligence he could not have obtained the
information necessary to serve Defendant McFadden. At the scheduling conference, the
Court noted that eight months was more than ample time for Plaintiff to serve all
defendants and for that reason, the Court refused to further extend the service deadline.
Doc. 17. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration essentially submits this same question and
the Court need not reconsider it.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 22) is denied.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2013.
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?