Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00792/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00792-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Marvel Entertainment, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

Stephen Kimble, 

Defendant. _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR 10-792 TUC DCB

ORDER

The Court denies the Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order, issued on

January 1, 2012, which denied Kimble’s Motion for Summary Judgment, granted Marvel’s

Motion for Summary Judgment, and entered Judgment for Marvel.

Motions to reconsider are generally treated as motions to alter or amend the

judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 59(e). See In re Agric. Research

& Tech. Group, Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 1990); MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman,

803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986). Specific grounds for a motion to amend or alter are not

listed in the rule, but generally there are four basic grounds for a Rule 59(e) motion: 1) the

movant may demonstrate that the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact

upon which the judgment is based; 2) the motion may be granted so that the moving party

may present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion will be

granted if necessary to prevent manifest injustice, such as serious misconduct of counsel may

justify relief under this theory, and 4) a motion may be justified by an intervening change in

controlling law. 11 Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2nd §

2810.1 (citations omitted). 

Case 4:10-cv-00792-DCB Document 39 Filed 02/10/12 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

Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances to correct manifest

errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Oregon 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 Bohannan Roofing, Inc.,

99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983); cf., Agric. Research & Tech. Group, 916 F.2d at 542.

Arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be directed to the court

of appeals. See Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.

Ill. 1983).

Kimble files the Motion for Reconsideration to correct a manifest error. Defendant

argues that given the Magistrate Judge’s interpretation of the Settlement Agreement was

contrary to this Court’s interpretation, it was manifest error for the Court to find the

Settlement Agreement was not ambiguous. This fact has been brought to the Court’s

attention several times, and this Court has repeatedly considered Defendant’s argument

regarding paragraph 9 in the Settlement Agreement. Repeatedly, this Court has found that

when all the provisions in the Settlement Agreement are considered together that there is no

ambiguity. Considering this Court has repeatedly considered Defendant’s argument and

never found any ambiguity, the Court finds no manifest error of law in its Order issued on

January 20, 2012, and denies the Motion for Reconsideration. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 38) is DENIED. 

DATED this 9th day of February, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00792-DCB Document 39 Filed 02/10/12 Page 2 of 2