Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02692/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02692-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

LaShauna Coleman,

Plaintiff,

v.

American Home Mortgage Servicing,

Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2692 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff LaShauna Coleman has filed a “request for clarification on previous ruling.”

Dkt. #62. Plaintiff appears to be asking the Court to reconsider its orders of March 30, 2010

and March 31, 2010 (Dkt. ##58, 60). 

I. Motion for Reconsideration.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct.15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration 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 [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order

is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. Nor should reconsideration be used to make new

arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See N. W. Acceptance Corp. v.

Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 64 Filed 04/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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 will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court's initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court's initial decision, or

(4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material

facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g., Motorola,

Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz .2003). Plaintiff

has failed to show that any of these circumstances apply.

II. Possible Contempt of Court.

Plaintiff’s motion borders on contempt of court. She asserts that the Court “strives

to find ways to assist the defendants in screwing plaintiff out of her life estate and rights,”

that the Court is acting “in pride and ego or exchange for a hefty payment,” that the Court

“may be seeing only green and ‘black and white’” – apparent references to money and racism

– and that “[t]his court commits fraud upon itself and the plaintiff.” Dkt. #62 at 11-13.

Plaintiff also states: “Didn’t your mother teach you not to lie, cheat, steal, murder, rape and

kill?” Id. at 13. 

Such direct and intemperate attacks on a court constitute contempt. 17 C.J.S.

Contempt § 27 (“Any act or conduct which shows disrespect for the dignity or authority of

the court, or which obstructs or tends to obstruct, interrupt, prevent, or embarrass the

administration of justice, constitutes contempt[.]”); see also, e.g., In re Gordon, 592 F.2d

1215 (1st Cir. 1979); In re Gustafson, 650 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981). As the Court stated to

Plaintiff at the TRO hearing on February 11, 2010, however, the Court understands the

difficulty Plaintiff is facing in the possible loss of her home. The Court attributes the

accusatory nature of her motion to frustration over the possibly of that event, and therefore

will not hold Plaintiff in contempt. The Court advises Plaintiff, however, that future filings

in this Court or others should not contain the kind of inappropriate invective found in her

motion.

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 64 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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 -

III. Request to Amend.

Plaintiff states in her motion that the Court should not dismiss this action without

affording her an opportunity to amend her complaint. Plaintiff has not sought leave to

amend. If Plaintiff wishes to amend her complaint, she should file a motion for leave to

amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and should lodge a copy of her

proposed amended complaint with the Court pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1.

The United States Supreme Court has established that motions to amend should be granted

unless the district court determines that there has been a showing of undue delay, bad faith

or dilatory motives on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

previous amendments, undue prejudice to the opposing party, or futility of the proposed

amendment. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

Should Plaintiff file a motion to amend and lodge an amended complaint, Plaintiff is

directed to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8(a) provides that a

complaint “shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends, . . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). These pleading requirements shall be set forth in separate and discrete

paragraphs. The paragraphs must be numbered in consecutive order. Each paragraph must

be “simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(1).

Plaintiff is advised that vague references are insufficient to satisfy the pleading

requirements of Rule 8. The amended complaint must give each Defendant “fair notice of

what [Plaintiff’s] claim is and the grounds upon which it is based.” Holgate v. Baldwin, 425

F.3d 671, 676 (9th Cir. 2005). This includes some factual basis for each claim asserted and

the specific legal theory supporting the claim. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct.

at 1949.

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiff’s request for clarification on previous ruling (Dkt #62) is denied.

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 64 Filed 04/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

2. If Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, she shall file a motion pursuant

to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and LRCiv 15.1 by

May 21, 2010.

DATED this 29th day of April, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02692-ROS Document 64 Filed 04/29/10 Page 4 of 4