Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Vistoso Partners, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-444-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On January 3, 2012, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in

this action. (Doc. 85). On January 17, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s January 3 decision, which the Court denied. (Docs. 88, 89). On February 7, 2012

the Court formally entered judgment against Defendant. (Doc. 90). Pending before the Court

is Defendant’s motion for a new trial and to alter and amend the judgment, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) and 59(e). (Doc. 91).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) provides that: “After a nonjury trial, the

court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take

additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and

direct the entry of a new judgment.” Rule 59(e) reads: “A motion to alter or amend a

judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” The Court will

grant a Rule 59 motion only if the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence,

(2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 94 Filed 06/20/12 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 -

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not

be used to ask a court “to rethink what the court had already thought through, rightly or

wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va.

1983)).

Defendant’s motion is in essence a request for the court to rethink what the court has

already thought through. (See Doc. 91). Such requests should be directed to the court of

appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Combined Motion for a New

Trial and Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (Doc. 91) is DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of June, 2012.

.

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 94 Filed 06/20/12 Page 2 of 2