Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02461/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02461-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

1

 Because this Court’s order of October 3, 2002, did not “end[] the litigation on the

merits and leave[] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” the challenged order

is not a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S.

229, 233 (1945). Thus, Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b)

which only apply to reconsideration of “final judgments and appealable interlocutory orders.”

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466-67 (9th Cir. 1989). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Carlton J. Henderson; Vanessa J.

Henderson, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Chase Home Finance, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2461-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Chase Home Finance LLC’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. # 29). The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order.

Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). Although Defendant does not cite a

specific section of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant cannot rely on Rule

59(e) or 60(b).1

 Rather, the Court will apply the following standard:

(1) There are material differences in fact or law from that presented to the

Court and, at the time of the Court’s decision, the party moving for

reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal differences

Case 2:09-cv-02461-JAT Document 32 Filed 05/21/10 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 -

through reasonable diligence;

(2) There are new material facts that happened after the Court’s decision;

(3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted after the Court’s

decision; or

(4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision.

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Defendant asks the Court to reconsider its decision striking its response to Plaintiff’s

motion for preliminary injunction. In the Court’s May 14, 2010 Order (Doc. # 27) the Court

struck Defendant’s response as untimely. Defendant now states that it obtained an agreement

from opposing counsel to extend the deadline for the filing of the response, but neglected to

file a stipulated motion with the Court seeking approval for the extension. Although the

Court does not discount the pressures of a busy workload, such a rationale for Defendant’s

late response does not justify a reconsideration of the Court’s May 14 Order under any of the

factors listed above.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Chase Home Finance LLC’s Motion for

Reconsideration (Doc. # 29) is denied.

DATED this 21st day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-02461-JAT Document 32 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 2