Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health Incorporated et al

Filing 31

ORDER denying #30 Motion for Reconsideration (see order for details). Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 6/20/2013.(TCA)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Weltha J. Jones-Rankins, Plaintiff, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-12-02360-PHX-DGC Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Defendants. 13 14 On May 29, 2013, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion to 15 dismiss for failure to state a claim. Doc. 28. On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion 16 for reconsideration. Doc. 29. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 17 I. Background. 18 In Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. CV 10-01626-PHX-FJM, 2011 WL 19 629011 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2011) (“Jones-Rankins I”), Plaintiff alleged discriminatory 20 conduct against her former employer. Plaintiff’s claim was defeated on the merits. Id. 21 In its previous order the Court determined that Jones-Rankins I met the requirements for 22 res judicata and therefore precluded Plaintiff from bringing the related claims in this case. 23 Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider alleges that the Court improperly considered statements 24 made in the briefs of Jones-Rankins I and that there was no identity of claims between the 25 two suits. 26 II. Legal Standard. 27 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to 28 make new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest 1 Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor 2 should such motions ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See United States v. Rezzonico, 3 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon 4 Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Under Rule 59(e), a motion for 5 reconsideration should not be granted unless the Court is presented with newly 6 discovered evidence, committed clear error, the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 7 there is an intervening change in controlling law. See 389 Orange Street Partners v. 8 Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 9 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 10 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 11 III. Analysis. 12 Plaintiff’s primary contention is that the first suit did not involve a claim for 13 wrongful termination and so the new suit does not share an identity of claims. This 14 argument has already been considered and rejected. While the Court acknowledged that 15 the second suit contained claims about discrimination surrounding Plaintiff’s discharge 16 that were not asserted in the first suit, it found that those claims could have been asserted 17 in the first suit and therefore were insufficient to establish that the two suits do not “arise 18 from the same transactional nucleus of facts.” Doc. 28 at 4 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser 19 Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001)). 20 Plaintiff objects to the Court’s citations from the “factual background” portion of 21 her brief in the first case, which she argues was not part of the claim but rather the factual 22 predicate upon which retaliation claims were based. She argues that it is a contradiction 23 for the Court to note that the wrongful termination was mentioned in the briefing of the 24 first suit and then to hold that the wrongful termination claim was not part of the first suit. 25 Identity of claims does not require that a particular claim was actually brought in 26 the first action in the same form in which it is brought in the second action. It requires 27 only that the claim “arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts” as the claim in the 28 first action, Owens, 244 F.3d at 714, and that the claim “could have been asserted” in the -2- 1 first action, United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrup Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 2 1998). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court’s conclusion that there was an identity 3 of claims did not rest on the fact that wrongful termination was mentioned in the first- 4 case briefing. As explained in the order, the first suit was initiated nearly one year after 5 Plaintiff’s discharge. Doc. 28 at 5. Both suits allege discriminatory action, and all of 6 Plaintiff’s claims could have been asserted in the first suit. Id. 7 Plaintiff has not presented new evidence, has not shown that the Court committed 8 clear error, and has not demonstrated an intervening change in law. Accordingly, the 9 Court will deny the motion for reconsideration. 10 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 29) is denied. 11 Dated this 20th day of June, 2013. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?