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)

Download PDF
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-

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?