Lexington Insurance Company v. Scott Homes Multifamily Incorporated et al

Filing 56

ORDER denying 50 Defendant Scott's Motion to Reconsider Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 6/24/2013.(TLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware
Corporation,

10

No. CV-12-02119-PHX-JAT
ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc., an Arizona
corporation; and Silverbell 290 Limited
Partnership,
an
Arizona
Limited
Partnership,

14
15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19

Defendant Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc. (“Scott”) moves for reconsideration of
the Court’s Order denying its motion to dismiss (Doc. 50).1

20

Scott’s Motion for Reconsideration is not well-taken for several reasons. First, in

21

moving for reconsideration, Scott fails to cite the proper standard for reconsideration2 or

22

to otherwise analyze the proper standard for reconsideration as applied to the facts of this

23

case. Second, Scott has used its Motion for Reconsideration as an opportunity to reargue

24
25
26
27
28

1

Although Scott requested oral argument on it motion, oral argument would not
aid the Court’s decisional process. Accordingly, the Scott’s request for oral argument is
denied. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas
Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).
2

See Motorola Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582–583
(D. Ariz. 2003) (setting forth standard for reconsideration of non-appealable interlocutory
orders).

1

the arguments it made in its motion to dismiss.

This is inappropriate.

See, e.g.,

2

Motorola, 215 F.R.D. at 586 (“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner

3

any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original

4

motion.”); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (same).

5

Third, Scott’s purported basis for reconsideration ignores the reasoning of the

6

Court’s Order denying Scott’s Motion to Dismiss. Scott argues that the Court was

7

required to accept Plaintiff Lexington’s allegations as true and, because the Court refused

8

to accept those allegations as true, the Court wrongly decided the Motion to Dismiss. In

9

fact, the Court found that Scott was a necessary party to this litigation pursuant to Federal

10

Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because its rights could be adversely affected by this litigation

11

in a practical sense. The Court based this finding on the fact that Plaintiff Lexington

12

alleged that (1) Scott assigned its rights under the policy without Lexington’s consent; (2)

13

Scott “materially breached its duty to cooperate with Lexington,” and (3) the Stipulated

14

Judgment between Scott and Silverbell was unreasonable and the result of collusion.

15

(Doc. 49 at 8-9).

16
17

Fourth, in moving for reconsideration, Scott has failed to cite to any authority
suggesting that this Court improperly applied its Rule 19 analysis.

18

Fifth, Scott’s conclusion that “this Court was wrong to say that Scott cannot be

19

dismissed from this lawsuit” is not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. See,

20

e.g., Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.

21

1983) (stating that it is improper for a party to use a “motion to reconsider to ask the

22

Court to rethink what the Court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.”).

23

Finally, the Court does not agree with Scott’s unsupported legal conclusions that it

24

will only be benefited by the Court’s rulings in this matter. It appears that Scott may be

25

engaging in some type of gamesmanship to avoid the res judicata effect of this Court’s

26

orders. This type of gamesmanship is what Rule 19 is, in part, trying to prevent and will

27

not be tolerated by this Court.

28

In sum, in its Motion for Reconsideration, Scott made no attempt to meet any

-2-

1

applicable standard for reconsideration and provided no appropriate grounds for such

2

reconsideration.

3

Based on the foregoing,

4

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Scott’s Motion to Reconsider Motion to

5
6

Dismiss (Doc. 50) is denied.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2013.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-