Ellman v. Colvin

Filing 43

ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration of Court's Order denying application for attorney fees under the EAJA. (See document for further details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michelle H Burns on 6/4/15. (LAD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner)
)
of Social Security Administration,
)
)
Defendant.
Avram J. Ellman,

CIV 13-1075-PHX-MHB
ORDER

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Avram J. Ellman’s motion for reconsideration

16

of the Court’s Order denying his application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to

17

Justice Act (“EAJA”) (Doc. 41).

18

On May 22, 2015, the Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s application for

19

attorney fees under the EAJA. Specifically, the Court found that Defendant’s decision to

20

defend the ALJ’s determination was substantially justified stating, “[a]lthough the Court

21

ultimately vacated the ALJ’s decision and remanded this matter for further consideration and

22

explanation, the record supports a finding that reasonable minds could have differed

23

concerning the inferences made by the ALJ as well as the sufficiency of detail provided by

24

the ALJ in her decision.” Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his request for reconsideration.

25

Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the

26

court. See Barber v. State of Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). “Motions to

27

reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances[.]” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner,

28

909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be

1

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

2

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

3

controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)

4

(citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

5

Cir. 1993)). Motions for reconsideration should not be used for the purpose of requesting

6

the court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through-rightly or wrongly.’”

7

Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1352 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

8

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.1983)); see also Sullivan v. Faras – RLS Group,

9

Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 308-09 (D. Ariz. 1992) (same). Moreover, the Rules of Practice of

10

the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, state that: “No motion for reconsideration

11

of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in

12

opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection

13

may be grounds for denial of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g).

14

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to rethink what

15

it has already thought through. As noted above, that is not a basis for reconsideration.

16

Plaintiff has not pointed to newly discovered evidence or shown that the Court clearly erred

17

or an intervening change in controlling law.

18

reconsideration will be denied.

19
20
21

IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order
denying his application for attorney fees under the EAJA (Doc. 41).
DATED this 4th day of June, 2015.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

-2-