Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01017/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01017-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Custom Homes By Via LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of Oklahoma; Bank of Arizona, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-01017-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Before the court is the Bank’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 90) of our order

granting partial summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor (doc. 67). Plaintiff sought summary

judgment on its claim that the Bank breached the loan agreement by failing to fund the entire

May 27, 2008 draw request. We considered and rejected the Bank’s only argument in

opposition—that it was not obligated to fund future work. 

The Bank now raises a new argument. It contends that it was not obligated to fund

the May 27, 2008 draw request because plaintiff had not established that it was not in default,

and otherwise in compliance with certain conditions precedent, for example guarantor’s

obligation to maintain a combined net worth of $8 million. We reject the Bank’s argument,

and thus its motion for reconsideration, for two reasons. First, we will not consider an

argument raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration without a showing that the

argument could not have been asserted before. The Bank has not made, nor could it make,

Case 2:12-cv-01017-FJM Document 91 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

such a showing. 

Second, even if we were to consider the merits of the Bank’s new argument, we would

reject it. The Bank now contends that it was not contractually obligated to fund the draw

request because plaintiff failed to establish certain conditions precedent. The Bank’s belated

reliance on conditions precedent is belied by the fact that it funded a portion of the draw

request. The Bank has not explained how it could, under the terms of the Loan Agreement,

reject only part of a draw request based on conditions precedent.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Bank’s motion for reconsideration (doc. 90).

DATED this 7th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01017-FJM Document 91 Filed 11/07/13 Page 2 of 2