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)

Download PDF
1 WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Van Go LLC, No. CV-16-00054-PHX-JJT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Deborah D.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-

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?