Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00869/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00869-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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 

Martha A. McNair, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Maxwell & Morgan PC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-14-00869-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The Court will 

deny the motion. 

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

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). 

Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted under Rooker-Feldman because “it is 

apparent that Plaintiff’s attack in State Court on the same collection practices that are the 

basis of the Federal lawsuit make these claims inextricably intertwined with the State 

Case 2:14-cv-00869-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Court’s decisions such that adjudication of McNair’s claims here would undercut the 

State Court’s rulings.” Doc. 38 at 4. In its order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, 

the Court discussed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and explained why it does not apply in 

this case. See Doc. 37 at 4-6. The Court will not reconsider this decision. 

In its previous order, the Court was unable to fully address Defendants’ arguments 

regarding the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because Defendants failed to 

provide the Court with a copy of the stipulation or records of the state court proceedings. 

Doc. 37 at 8-9. Defendants attest that they attached physical copies of these documents 

to the original motion they mailed to the Clerk. Doc. 38 at 2. Defendants state that they 

did not file the documents electronically for fear of violating Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), but 

filing records of an Arizona state proceeding to support defenses of res judicata and 

collateral estoppel clearly is permissible under that rule. Unfortunately, Defendants have 

again failed to file these records electronically on CM/ECF, rendering the Court unable to 

consult them.1

 The Court will not reconsider Defendants’ motion on this basis.2 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to reconsider (Doc. 38) is denied. 

Dated this 5th day of September, 2014. 

 

1

 Defendants assert that they mailed copies of the stipulation and records of the state court proceedings along with their original motion to dismiss. Doc. 38 at 2. They also appear to have mailed a “duplicate copy of the Motion to Dismiss,” along with copies of the relevant documents, as an attachment to their motion for reconsideration. 

Id. Because the Court uses the CM/ECF filing system, the Clerk does not file or retain 

paper records. Defendants failed to file copies of the documents electronically, and they are not part of the record in this case or accessible by the Court. 

2

 Defendants’ motion does not fully address why res judicata or collateral estoppel bar Plaintiff from asserting FDCPA claims in this action. Defendants do not appear to acknowledge that while their debt-collection practices may have been legal under Arizona law, they may nevertheless violate federal law and give rise to viable FDCPA claims that can be asserted in this action. The Court will not allocate further resources to 

the motion to dismiss. Further motions for reconsideration should not be filed. 

Case 2:14-cv-00869-DGC Document 39 Filed 09/05/14 Page 2 of 2