Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00386-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BNSF Railway Company; Matthew

Kelly McCauley; and Joel Frederick

Briggs, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

The Honorable Joseph Flies Away, in his

capacity as the Chief Judge of the

Hualapai Tribal Court, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-0386-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court has received Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunctive Relief. Dkt. #148. The

motion asks the Court to reconsider its decision to grant a permanent injunction against any

proceedings against Plaintiffs in Hualapai Tribal Court. Defendants argue that the Court’s

order constitutes clear error and is manifestly unjust. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

Country, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Defendants believe the

Court lacks jurisdiction under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), because there will be

no violation of federal law as Defendants have declared they will dismiss the Sullivan

Lawsuit in tribal court. Dkt. #149 at 2-3. Relying on National Farmers Union Insurance v.

Crow Tribe, 47 U.S. 845, 856 (1985), Defendants also argue that the Court’s order does not

support tribal self-government. Id. at 3. Finally, Defendants assert that the Court’s decision

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 150 Filed 11/09/06 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 -

is manifestly unjust because it violates the principle of comity between federal and tribal

courts by preventing the Defendants from taking action to dismiss the Sullivan Lawsuit. Id.

at 3-4.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make

new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such

motions ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico,

32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Defendants’ motion asserts arguments

previously considered by the Court. Because the Court has not committed clear error and its

order (Dkt. #143) was not manifestly unjust, the Court will not reconsider its prior decision.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #148) is

denied.

 DATED this 9th day of November, 2006.

Case 3:05-cv-00386-DGC Document 150 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2