McNair v. Maxwell & Morgan PC et al

Filing 39

ORDER denying 38 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 9/5/2014.(DGC, nvo)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Martha A. McNair,

No. CV-14-00869-PHX-DGC
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Maxwell & Morgan PC, et al.,

13
14
15

Defendants.
Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The Court will
deny the motion.

16

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

17

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences

18

in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the

19

party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the

20

exercise of reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the

21

Court’s initial decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s

22

initial decision, or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed

23

to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial

24

decision. See, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D.

25

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

26

Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted under Rooker-Feldman because “it is

27

apparent that Plaintiff’s attack in State Court on the same collection practices that are the

28

basis of the Federal lawsuit make these claims inextricably intertwined with the State

1

Court’s decisions such that adjudication of McNair’s claims here would undercut the

2

State Court’s rulings.” Doc. 38 at 4. In its order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss,

3

the Court discussed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and explained why it does not apply in

4

this case. See Doc. 37 at 4-6. The Court will not reconsider this decision.

5

In its previous order, the Court was unable to fully address Defendants’ arguments

6

regarding the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because Defendants failed to

7

provide the Court with a copy of the stipulation or records of the state court proceedings.

8

Doc. 37 at 8-9. Defendants attest that they attached physical copies of these documents

9

to the original motion they mailed to the Clerk. Doc. 38 at 2. Defendants state that they

10

did not file the documents electronically for fear of violating Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), but

11

filing records of an Arizona state proceeding to support defenses of res judicata and

12

collateral estoppel clearly is permissible under that rule. Unfortunately, Defendants have

13

again failed to file these records electronically on CM/ECF, rendering the Court unable to

14

consult them.1 The Court will not reconsider Defendants’ motion on this basis.2

15

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to reconsider (Doc. 38) is denied.

16

Dated this 5th day of September, 2014.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants assert that they mailed copies of the stipulation and records of the
state court proceedings along with their original motion to dismiss. Doc. 38 at 2. They
also appear to have mailed a “duplicate copy of the Motion to Dismiss,” along with
copies of the relevant documents, as an attachment to their motion for reconsideration.
Id. Because the Court uses the CM/ECF filing system, the Clerk does not file or retain
paper records. Defendants failed to file copies of the documents electronically, and they
are not part of the record in this case or accessible by the Court.
2

Defendants’ motion does not fully address why res judicata or collateral estoppel
bar Plaintiff from asserting FDCPA claims in this action. Defendants do not appear to
acknowledge that while their debt-collection practices may have been legal under
Arizona law, they may nevertheless violate federal law and give rise to viable FDCPA
claims that can be asserted in this action. The Court will not allocate further resources to
the motion to dismiss. Further motions for reconsideration should not be filed.
-2-