Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00662/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00662-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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

U-Haul International, Inc., et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 

Defendant/Counter-Claimant. _________________________________

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company,

Defendant/Counter-Claimant,

vs.

U-Haul International, Inc., et al,

Counter-Defendants. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-0662 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“LMC”) has

filed a Motion for Amended and Additional Findings, Motion for Amendment of Judgment,

and Motion for a New Trial. Dkt. #172, 173. Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants U-Haul

International, Inc. and Republic Western Insurance Company (collectively, “U-Haul”) have

filed a response. Dkt. #183. LMC has filed a reply. Dkt. #186. The Court will deny LMC’s

motion. 

This case has seen more briefing, re-briefing, and re-argument of issues than any case

in the Court’s memory. The Court initially granted partial summary judgment to U-Haul

almost one year ago. This ruling has been followed by a number of efforts to re-argue

matters already decided. LMC’s present motion constitutes one more effort in this ongoing

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 189 Filed 05/30/07 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 -

pattern.

The Court held a bench trial in this matter on March 7, 2007. Prior to the trial, the

parties submitted extensive deposition testimony and voluminous written exhibits. Live

testimony and extended oral arguments were heard during the bench trial. After carefully

considering this evidence, the Court entered judgment in favor of U-Haul. Dkt. #162. 

LMC’s motion asks the Court to reconsider virtually every significant finding that

resulted from the bench trial and the essential conclusions from the summary judgment

ruling. LMC does not present new evidence that previously was unavailable, does not assert

an intervening change in controlling law, and has failed to persuade the Court that its

previous findings and conclusions were erroneous.

The purpose of post-judgment motions under Rules 52(b) and 59 is to give the Court

an opportunity to correct manifest errors of law or fact, allow the parties to present newly

discovered evidence, take additional testimony, make additional findings, or take other action

in the interests of justice. “This is not to say, however, that a motion to amend should be

employed . . . to relitigate old issues, to advance new theories, or to secure a rehearing on the

merits.” Fontenot v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 791 F.2d 1207, 1219 (5th Cir. 1986); see also

Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978). LMC’s motion seeks to relitigate issues

thoroughly briefed, argued, and decided in the past. 

The time has come to conclude this case. All of LMC’s and U-Haul’s arguments have

been considered carefully. The Court has made its decision. The Court will not revisit and

reconsider that decision on the basis of nothing more than LMC’s assertion of arguments

already made and rejected. 

IT IS ORDERED that LMC’s Motion for Amended and Additional Findings, Motion

for Amendment of Judgment, and Motion for New Trial (Dkt. #172) is denied.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-00662-DGC Document 189 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2