Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00141/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00141-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

 As Stream notes in its motion, Croomes was actually employed by Stream’s

predecessor, eTelecare Global Solotions, Inc. The Court uses “Defendant” to collectively

refer to both Stream and eTelecare.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tracee Croomes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Stream Global Services - AZ, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0141-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Court For Reconsideration of

Dismissal. (Doc. 60). The Court now rules on the Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff pro se Tracee Croomes filed this employment discrimination case against

Defendant in Maricopa County Superior Court.1

 Defendant timely removed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1441, stating that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §

1331 over Plaintiff’s Title VII claims. (Doc. 1 at 2). In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that

Defendant terminated her employment “based on the color of [her] skin,” and Plaintiff sought

$150,000 in lost wages, pain, and suffering. (Doc. 1-2 at 2; Doc. 1-5 at 2).

Before bringing suit, Plaintiff appropriately sought relief from the Equal Employment

Case 2:11-cv-00141-JAT Document 65 Filed 07/19/12 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 -

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on September 8, 2009. (Doc. 36-1 at 2). Plaintiff’s

EEOC complaint alleged that Defendant terminated her employment on March 26, 2009,

based on her gender and race. Id. After filing her EEOC complaint, Plaintiff filed for

bankruptcy on September 29, 2009. (Doc. 36-1 at 4–5). While her bankruptcy proceedings

were pending, the EEOC dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint and issued her a right-to-sue letter

on August 9, 2010. (Doc. 36-3 at 18). Plaintiff then timely brought her initial suit in the

Maricopa County Superior Court on November 8, 2010. (Doc. 1-2 at 2). Defendants removed

to this Court on January 21, 2011, and the Bankruptcy Court granted Plaintiff a discharge on

January 31, 2012. (Doc. 1 at 3; Doc. 45-1 at 11).

Defendant then moved for summary judgment. In ruling on Defendant’s motion, the

Court determined that Plaintiff’s claim belonged to the bankruptcy estate, and that the

bankruptcy Trustee had the exclusive right to sue on behalf of the estate. (Doc. 51 at 3-4).

Accordingly, Plaintiff lacked standing to bring her suit and the Court ordered the case

dismissed unless the Trustee intervened. Id. at 5. Pursuant to this Order, the Clerk of the

Court dismissed the case on May 8, 2012. (Doc. 60). On May 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed the

instant motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 62).

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Although Plaintiff did not indicate which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governed

her Motion, a motion for reconsideration is appropriately brought under either Rule 59(e) or

Rule 60(b). Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991). If a motion for

reconsideration is filed less than twenty-eight days after judgment, it will be construed as a

Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment. Here, Plaintiff’s Motion was filed less than

twenty-eight days after the action was dismissed, so the Court will apply the Rule 59(e)

analysis.

“A Rule 59 motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 343 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc)). The Court

Case 2:11-cv-00141-JAT Document 65 Filed 07/19/12 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 -

ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration 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. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g). No motion for reconsideration

may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition

to the motion that resulted in the Order for which the party seeks reconsideration. Id.

Repeating arguments in a motion to reconsider may be grounds for denying the motion. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration largely consists of language from E.E.O.C. v.

Apria Healthcare Group, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 608, 612 (E.D. Mo. 2004). As a 2004 case, Apria

does not represent a change in the controlling law. Additionally, as it consists of a discussion

of the Eighth Circuit law regarding bankruptcy standing, it is not controlling law in this case,

and would not warrant reconsideration of this Court’s Order dismissing the case. Plaintiff

does not otherwise present any new evidence, or suggest any way in which this Court

committed clear or manifest error. Thus, Plaintiff is not entitled to reconsideration of this

Court’s March 29, 2012 Order. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Court for Reconsideration (Doc. 62) is

denied.

DATED this 19th day of July, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00141-JAT Document 65 Filed 07/19/12 Page 3 of 3