Permanent General Assurance Corporation v. Davis

Filing 51

ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 34 Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 5/17/13.

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

A s s u r a n c e)
)
)
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, )
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
Nicolette Davis,
)
Defendant/Counterclaimant. )
)
Permanent
Corporation,

General

No. CV 12-791-TUC-FRZ
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Ms. Davis seeking reconsideration of the

17

Court’s Order dismissing her counterclaims. The motion is denied.

18

I. Discussion

19
20

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by
showing two things. First, it must demonstrate some valid reason why the Court
should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly
convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision.

21
22

Courts have advanced three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an
intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and
(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

23
Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 795 F. Supp. 965, 967 (D. Ariz. 1992); see also Defenders of
24
Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)(a motion for reconsideration
25
should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already thought through26
rightly or wrongly."); Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 6, 7
27
28

1

(N.D.Ill. 1983)(arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be

2

directed to the court of appeals).

3
4
5
6

Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court finds no
basis to depart from its original decision.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) The motion to reconsider (Doc. 26) is denied.1

7
8

DATED this 17th day of May, 2013.

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

1

The Court notes that Davis filed a motion to compel (Doc. 34) arguing that Permanent
General gave inadequate responses to requests for admissions and interrogatories. A review of the
pertinent record reflects that Permanent General appropriately responded to the discovery at issue;
the motion to compel is denied.

-2-