Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01328/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01328-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Margaret Branscomb, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Group USA, Inc.; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1328-PHX-JAT

ORDER

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on September 23,

2010. (Doc. 122.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (Doc. 125) on

October 21, 2010. Plaintiff moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter

or amend the summary judgment and moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

62(b)(3) to stay the judgment until the Court disposes of the Motion.

Plaintiff may seek reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling by filing

a Rule 59(e) motion. Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 n.1 (9th Cir. 1988). A Rule

59(e) motion seeks a “substantive change of mind by the court.” Id. (internal citation

omitted). “A Rule 59 motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change

in the controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 343 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003)(quoting

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)(en banc)). 

The Court ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of

manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought

to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g). No motion for

Case 2:08-cv-01328-JAT Document 128 Filed 12/13/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

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

or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order that the movant wants the Court to

reconsider. Id. Repeating arguments in a motion to reconsider may be grounds for denying

the motion. Id.

Plaintiff does not present any new evidence in her Motion, nor does she point to an

intervening change in the law. She argues that the Court committed clear error when it

granted summary judgment to Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff argues the Court: erred in

finding that Defendant’s false representation to the Arizona Department of Economic

Security was a mistake; was manifestly unjust to consider some of Defendant’s

“unauthenticated” evidence without considering Plaintiff’s evidence; erred in disregarding

the Plaintiff’s evidence of pretext; and erred by relying on inadmissible evidence.

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion and the Court’s summary

judgment Order. The Court finds that it did not commit clear legal error in its earlier Order.

The Court therefore will deny the Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Summary

Judgment. The Court, however, will make the clarifications listed below:

• The Court did not make a finding in the summary judgment Order that Defendant

made a mistake when it filled out the DES form indicating that Plaintiff had quit.

Rather, the Court noted that Plaintiff had not demonstrated that someone at Defendant

made a knowing representation. (Doc. 122, pp.6 & 12, “The fact that someone may

have told the Arizona DES, mistakenly or otherwise, that Plaintiff quit does not make

Defendant’s proffered reasons for termination less credible.”). 

• The Court did not make a finding, nor did it need to make a finding to grant summary

judgment, that Plaintiff was not a good seamstress. Nor did the Court find that

Plaintiff did not have any satisfied customers. Rather, the Court found that Defendant

had presented sufficient evidence that Defendant believed she was not meeting

expectations and that is why Defendant terminated her. Defendant correctly points

out in its Response to the Rule 59(e) Motion that in discrimination cases, the Court

does not act as a super-personnel department. Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel Co., 991

Case 2:08-cv-01328-JAT Document 128 Filed 12/13/10 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

F.2d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 1993)(“The district court must not substitute its own judgment

about whether the employment decisions were wise, or even fair, for that of the

employer.”)

• The Court considered all the evidence presented by the parties. The Court did not

ignore Plaintiff’s evidence. Rather, the Court found that Plaintiff did not present

evidence specific and substantial enough to create an issue of fact on pretext. 

• The Court does not need to be overly concerned with whether the parties presented

evidence in an admissible format at the summary judgment stage if the content of the

evidence would be admissible at trial. Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036 (9th

Cir. 2003)(“[W]e need not decide whether the diary itself is admissible. It would be

sufficient if the contents of the diary are admissible at trial, even if the diary itself may

be inadmissible. At the summary judgment state, we do not focus on the admissibility

of the evidence’s form.”). 

• Complaints by Plaintiff’s customers are not hearsay because the complaints are not

being offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein – that Plaintiff’s

performance was poor. Instead, the complaints are offered to show Defendant’s

knowledge of customer complaints when it decided to terminate Plaintiff.

Having made those clarifications,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Denying Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or

Amend the September 23, 2010 Judgment (Doc. 125). It is further ordered denying the

Motion to Stay Judgment Pursuant to Rule 62(b)(3) (Doc. 125) as moot.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01328-JAT Document 128 Filed 12/13/10 Page 3 of 3