Doemer #192804 v. Ryan et al

Filing 156

ORDER denying 155 Motion to Reopen Case and Unbind the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 7/8/19. (DXD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Russell Gordon Doemer,

No. CV-17-02174-PHX-DGC (BSB)

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

ORDER

Charles Ryan; Maureen Johnson; Jennifer
Fox; and Corizon Health Care Corporation,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff has filed a motion to reopen this case and unbind the parties’ settlement

16
17

agreement. Doc. 155. The Court will deny the motion.

18

I.

Background.

19

Plaintiff asserts various constitutional violations against Defendants, including

20

Eighth Amendment medical claims. Doc. 1. These claims allege a denial of treatment

21

for Plaintiff’s hepatitis and certain other medical conditions. See id. at 6; Doc. 27 at 3-6.

22

The parties agreed to settle the case for a confidential amount in early January

23

2019 and filed a notice to this effect. See Docs. 135, 136. The Clerk administratively

24

terminated the case on March 1, 2019 because the parties failed to timely file a stipulation

25

to dismiss. Docs. 136, 138. The parties subsequently filed stipulations to dismiss the

26

claims with prejudice, which the Court granted. Docs. 139, 140, 143, 144.

27

Plaintiff filed motions to reopen and continue the case. Doc. 145, 150, 152. The

28

Court denied the motions because the settlement agreement is a binding contract and

1

1

Plaintiff released all claims arising out of this action pursuant to the express terms of the

2

agreement. Doc. 153. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider this ruling. Doc. 155.

3

II.

Reconsideration Standard.

4

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

5

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV-05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502,

6

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). A motion for reconsideration will be denied “absent

7

a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not

8

have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv

9

7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement

10

with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross, 2008 WL 1776502,

11

at *2. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to

12

rethink its analysis. See id.; Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d

13

918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

14

III.

Discussion.

15

Plaintiff claims that the Court failed to consider his argument that Defendants lied

16

to him and withheld information about his diagnosis of hepatitis. Doc. 155 at 1. This is

17

not correct.

18

Plaintiff argued in his initial motion to reopen that Defendants purposely ignored

19

the fact that his hepatitis was in an advanced stage and falsely led Plaintiff to believe

20

otherwise. Doc. 145 at 1. He further argued that Defendants withheld this information

21

until the settlement agreement became effective. Id. at 2-3.

22

The Court considered these arguments in ruling on the motion to reopen. See

23

Doc. 153 at 3 (citing Doc. 145 at 1-3).

The Court denied the motion because the

24

settlement agreement “provides for the release of all claims whether ‘known or unknown,

25

matured or unmatured, asserted or unasserted, or which may hereafter accrue or

26

otherwise be acquired, on account of [his] injuries[.]’” Id. at 3 (quoting Doc. 147 at 7).

27

The Court explained that Plaintiff “expressly waived and assumed the risk of any claims

28

for damages that are unknown, ‘including any claims which, if known, would materially

2

1

affect his decision to enter into [the agreement].’” Id. Because Plaintiff fully understood

2

and voluntarily accepted the agreement’s terms, the agreement is a binding contract that

3

precludes Plaintiff from pursuing any claim against Defendants based on the

4

circumstances alleged in his complaint. See id. (citing Doc. 147 at 2-3). Plaintiff has

5

shown no manifest error in this ruling. Nor has he shown that the Court has overlooked

6

or otherwise misapprehended matters.1

7
8
9

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s new motion to reopen this case and unbind the
settlement agreement (Doc. 155) is denied.
Dated this 8th day of July, 2019.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff asserts that he has documents which prove Defendants’ alleged deceitful
conduct, but he does not present this purported evidence in support of his motion for
reconsideration. Nor did he present any such evidence with his prior motions to reopen.
See Docs. 145, 150, 152.
1

26
27
28

3