Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08156/USCOURTS-azd-3_08-cv-08156-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

David Derringer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Robert Sewell, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-8156-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is “Plaintiff’s timely motion for reconsideration/relief from

order of June 2, 2009 under FRCP rules 59 and 60 notice of court’s actions without

jurisdiction or judicial capacity and in violation of oath.” Dkt. #47. The motion consists of

eighteen rambling pages about the Court’s error in all matters and how Plaintiff was denied

justice. Id. Plaintiff asserts that the undersigned judge violated the oath of office by issuing

the June 2, 2009 order. Id. 

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

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008) (citing Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

reconsideration. See id. (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D.

Haw. 1988)). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court

to rethink its analysis. See id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116

Case 3:08-cv-08156-DGC Document 56 Filed 08/07/09 Page 1 of 3
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 -

(D. Ariz. 1998)); see also 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

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’s largely incomprehensible motion fails to satisfy any of these requirements.

In the June 2, 2009 order, the Court designated Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and

sanctioned him by requiring the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees. Dkt. #45. The Court

asked Defendants to submit a memorandum of fees. Id. In the meantime, Plaintiff appealed

to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt. ## 53, 54. In the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not

rule on Defendants’ request for fees until after the Ninth Circuit has ruled. The Court will

deny Defendants’ request for fees without prejudice. Defendants may refile their

memorandum within 30 days after the appeal is final. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d), Advisory

Committee’s Note (1993 amendments) (“If an appeal on the merits of the case is taken, the

[district] court may rule on the claim for fees, may defer its ruling on the motion, or may

deny the motion without prejudice, directing under subdivision (d)(2)(B) a new period for

filing after the appeal has been resolved.”); see also Tancredi v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,

378 F.3d 220, 225-26 (2d Cir. 2004). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #47) is denied.

Case 3:08-cv-08156-DGC Document 56 Filed 08/07/09 Page 2 of 3
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 -

2. Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees is denied without prejudice.

Defendants may refile their memorandum within 30 days after the appeal

before the Ninth Circuit is final. 

DATED this 7th day of August, 2009.

Case 3:08-cv-08156-DGC Document 56 Filed 08/07/09 Page 3 of 3