Reed v. Corizon LLC et al

Filing 143

ORDER denying 136 Plaintiff Kenneth Reed's Motion for New Trial. Further ordered that Plaintiff's remaining motions are denied as moot, and that case shall remain closed. Signed by Judge Raner C Collins on 9/24/2018. (BAR)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Kenneth W Reed,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00470-TUC-RCC

Corizon LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kenneth Reed’s motion for new trial. Doc.

16

136. Previously, this Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Doc.

17

130. This Court will interpret Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for reconsideration.

18

Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

19

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Such motions

24

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the court had

25

already thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at

26

1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101

27

(E.D. Va. 1983)). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or

28

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

1

the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

2

Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of

3

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

4

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an

5

insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp.

6

1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988).

7

In his motion, Reed does not direct the Court’s attention to newly discovered

8

evidence or an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Reed appears to argue that

9

this Court committed clear error when it granted Defendants’ motion for summary

10

judgment. Specifically, Reed claims that his response to Defendants’ motion was timely.

11

This Court disagrees.

12

Relying on Local Rule 7.2(c), Reed believes that he should have been granted 14

13

days to file his response. However, Local Rule 7.2(c) states that Reed shall have 14 days

14

to file a responsive memorandum “unless otherwise ordered by the Court.” On

15

September 11, 2017, this Court granted Reed’s request for additional time to file his

16

response but limited the time to 10 days. The Court also noted that further extensions

17

were unlikely to be granted. Further, Plaintiff was previously provided with more than

18

125 days of additional time to file his response to Defendants’ motion. Because the Court

19

did not commit a clear error when it granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

20

Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

21

…

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Kenneth Reed’s motion for a new trial

3

is denied. Doc. 136.

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s remaining motions are denied as
moot.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall remain closed.

7

Dated this 24th day of September, 2018.

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

-3-