Sullivan et al v. United States of America

Filing 40

ORDER granting 28 Motion for Reconsideration and the motion to compel remains DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 9/26/2016. (See attached Order for details) (KEP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8
9

William Sullivan, et al.,

10
11

Plaintiffs,

12
13
14
15

v.
United States of America,
Defendant.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CV-15-231-TUC-DCB
ORDER

Defendant United States of America moved to compel Plaintiffs to comply with the
preliminary expert affidavit requirements of A.R.S. § 12-2603 within 20 days of this Court’s

19
20

Order, or be subject to dismissal without prejudice of Plaintiffs’ Complaint as required by

21

A.R.S. § 12-2603(F). This Court denied that motion. Defendant has filed a motion to

22

reconsider that ruling.

23
24

This is an action filed in federal court based solely on a federal statute, the Federal

25

Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2671, et seq., albeit there are some Arizona tort-based claims

26

filed that are subject to supplemental jurisdiction and may be severed. This is not a medical

27
28

malpractice action based on A.R.S. §§12-561, et al. Plaintiffs are represented by legal

1
2

counsel and all parties are subject to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 and 26. Moreland v. Barrette, 2006
WL 3147651 (D.Ariz. 2006) (diversity jurisdiction implementing the Erie doctrine) is

3
4

inapplicable to this action because diversity is not an issue. Cases that involve solely a

5

violation of a federal statute against the United States of America, with all the power and

6

sovereignty that entails, are not based on any state law violations (diversity) or against

7
8
9
10
11

individual state actors (civil rights). A FTCA action names solely the United States as the
defendant, not an individual physician, surgeon or medical facility.1
Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders
of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995).

A motion for

12
13

reconsideration is appropriate where the district court “(1) is presented with newly

14

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,

15

or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

16

County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions should not be used
17
18

for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through –

19

rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt,

20

Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for

21
22

reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time

23

when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v.

24

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for reconsideration

25
26
27
28

1

In a very similar FTCA action in this Court, the application of A.R.S. § 12-2603 was never
raised as an impediment to continuation of the litigation. Puig v. United States, CV-04-0089-TUCDCB.

1
2

repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola,
Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere

3
4
5
6

disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong
v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).
This Court is not required to apply A.R.S. §12-2603 in a FTCA against the United

7
8
9
10
11

States. The underlying principles involved in requiring compliance with this state statute are
outweighed in a situation where the United States is the sole defendant, with all the power
and sovereignty that entails.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 28) is GRANTED and

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

the motion to compel remains DENIED.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2016.