Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02119-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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 

Lexington Insurance Company, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc., an Arizona 

corporation; and Silverbell 290 Limited 

Partnership, an Arizona Limited 

Partnership, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-02119-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Defendant Scott Homes Multifamily, Inc. (“Scott”) moves for reconsideration of 

the Court’s Order denying its motion to dismiss (Doc. 50).1

 Scott’s Motion for Reconsideration is not well-taken for several reasons. First, in 

moving for reconsideration, Scott fails to cite the proper standard for reconsideration2

 or 

to otherwise analyze the proper standard for reconsideration as applied to the facts of this 

case. Second, Scott has used its Motion for Reconsideration as an opportunity to reargue 

 1

 Although Scott requested oral argument on it motion, oral argument would not 

aid the Court’s decisional process. Accordingly, the Scott’s request for oral argument is 

denied. See Partridge v. Reich, 141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas 

Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 

2

 See Motorola Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582–583 

(D. Ariz. 2003) (setting forth standard for reconsideration of non-appealable interlocutory 

orders). 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 56 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

the arguments it made in its motion to dismiss. This is inappropriate. See, e.g., 

Motorola, 215 F.R.D. at 586 (“No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner 

any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original 

motion.”); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (same). 

 Third, Scott’s purported basis for reconsideration ignores the reasoning of the 

Court’s Order denying Scott’s Motion to Dismiss. Scott argues that the Court was 

required to accept Plaintiff Lexington’s allegations as true and, because the Court refused 

to accept those allegations as true, the Court wrongly decided the Motion to Dismiss. In 

fact, the Court found that Scott was a necessary party to this litigation pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because its rights could be adversely affected by this litigation 

in a practical sense. The Court based this finding on the fact that Plaintiff Lexington 

alleged that (1) Scott assigned its rights under the policy without Lexington’s consent; (2) 

Scott “materially breached its duty to cooperate with Lexington,” and (3) the Stipulated 

Judgment between Scott and Silverbell was unreasonable and the result of collusion. 

(Doc. 49 at 8-9). 

 Fourth, in moving for reconsideration, Scott has failed to cite to any authority 

suggesting that this Court improperly applied its Rule 19 analysis. 

 Fifth, Scott’s conclusion that “this Court was wrong to say that Scott cannot be 

dismissed from this lawsuit” is not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. See, 

e.g., Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 

1983) (stating that it is improper for a party to use a “motion to reconsider to ask the 

Court to rethink what the Court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.”). 

 Finally, the Court does not agree with Scott’s unsupported legal conclusions that it 

will only be benefited by the Court’s rulings in this matter. It appears that Scott may be 

engaging in some type of gamesmanship to avoid the res judicata effect of this Court’s 

orders. This type of gamesmanship is what Rule 19 is, in part, trying to prevent and will 

not be tolerated by this Court. 

 In sum, in its Motion for Reconsideration, Scott made no attempt to meet any 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 56 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

applicable standard for reconsideration and provided no appropriate grounds for such 

reconsideration. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Scott’s Motion to Reconsider Motion to 

Dismiss (Doc. 50) is denied. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02119-JAT Document 56 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 3