Van Go LLC v. Potts et al

Filing 22

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED denying 20 Defendants Motion for Reconsideration. (See attached Order for complete details). Signed by Judge John J Tuchi on 6/27/16.(JAMA)

1

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Van Go LLC,

No. CV-16-00054-PHX-JJT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Deborah D. Potts, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

At issue is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying

16

their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20, Mot.). Because the Court will deny the Motion, the

17

Court did not await a Response from Plaintiff. Motions for reconsideration should be

18

granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

19

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court

20

“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

21

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

22

law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

23

Cir. 1993). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for

24

reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw.

25

1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present

26

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

27

litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor

28

may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or

1

in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215

2

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

3

As Defendants present no newly discovered evidence or any intervening change in

4

controlling law, the Court construes their Motion as one based on the assertion that the

5

Court has committed clear error in denying their Motion to Dismiss. Defendants

6

challenge the Court’s finding that the allegations support an inference that Plaintiff’s

7

delayed discovery of the alleged fraud was reasonable. Defendants argue that the Court

8

conflates “Plaintiff” with “Showcase Honda,” and the focus should be when Showcase

9

discovered the alleged fraud, not the Plaintiff. (Mot. at 2.) The Court is unpersuaded by

10

Defendants’ argument. In the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, the Court cites

11

Plaintiff’s allegations that Mrs. Potts’s concealment may have prevented Showcase from

12

discovering the alleged fraud. The Court then concludes that this allegation supports the

13

inference that Plaintiff’s delayed discovery was reasonable. Whether Plaintiff (as

14

assignee of Showcase’s rights) or Showcase discovered the fraud, the Court’s analysis

15

and conclusion is the same.

16

Defendants further challenge the Court’s conclusion that Arizona’s economic loss

17

rule does not apply in this case. Defendants argue that the parties have a contract and,

18

citing Flagstaff Affordable Housing Limited Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223

19

P.3d 664 (Ariz. 2010), Arizona’s economic loss rule applies. (Mot. at 5–9.) As stated in

20

the Court’s Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, whether there is a contract between the

21

parties need not be decided. In consideration of both contract and tort law policies, as

22

instructed by the Arizona Supreme Court in Flagstaff, this case is not a situation where

23

Arizona’s economic loss rule applies. The Court directly addressed the balance of

24

Defendants’ arguments in its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and will not

25

re-address them here.

26

///

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20).

2

Dated this 27th day of June, 2016.

3
4
5

Honorable John J. Tuchi
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-