Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_21-cv-08020/USCOURTS-azd-3_21-cv-08020-3/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

Olga I Waesche,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 

Incorporated,

Defendant.

No. CV-21-08020-PCT-DLR

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 

September 29, 2023 order. (Doc. 84.) Additional briefing is unnecessary, and the Court 

denies the motion. 

Motions for reconsideration are rarely granted. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 

909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration ordinarily will be 

denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority 

that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 

7.2(g). The motion must “point out with specificity the matters the movant believes were 

overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s 

attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific 

modifications being sought in the Court’s order.” Id. Further, “[n]o motion for 

reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support 

or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.” Id. The Court may deny a motion 

Case 3:21-cv-08020-DLR Document 86 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 2
- 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

for reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. Id.

Here, Plaintiff has neither made a showing of manifest error nor presented the Court 

with new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier 

with reasonable diligence. Rather, Plaintiff merely repeats arguments that the Court 

previously considered and rejected. Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s order is 

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

1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Further, “it is not enough to simply incant the phrase ‘manifest 

error.’” Estrada v. Bashas Inc., No. CV-02-00591-PHX-RCB, 2014 WL 1319189, at *3

(D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2014). Plaintiff must identify each error and explain how it is “plain and 

indisputable[,] . . . amount[ing] to a complete disregard of the controlling law or credible 

evidence in the record.” Id. Plaintiff has not done that. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 84) is DENIED.

Dated this 17th day of October, 2023.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 3:21-cv-08020-DLR Document 86 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 2