Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02887-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 15:2(a) Fair Labor Standards 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

Dixie Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

D.A.R.A. II, Inc., an Arizona Corporation,

Kenneth Presutti, a single man; Cyndee

Presutti, a single woman; Jesse and Dara

Wintersteen, husband and wife; and

Jeffery Presutti, a single man, 

Defendants

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2887-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter arises on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s

order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Defendants’ Cross

Motion for Summary Judgment. (docket # 45) Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the

Court’s January 22, 2008 order denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

on the grounds that Plaintiff has subsequently taken the deposition of Defendant Kenneth

Presutti which revealed several material inconsistencies with his sworn affidavit and

contentions raised by Defendants to Plaintiff’s claims. No response to the pending motion

has been filed as one has not been requested by the Court per LRCiv 7.2(g)(2).

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by

showing two elements. LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS,

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1264 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing All Hawaii Tours Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural

Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 648-49 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d on other grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (1988)).

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 52 Filed 03/25/08 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 -

First, it must demonstrate some valid reason why the Court should reconsider its prior

decision. All Hawaii Tours Corp., 116 F.R.D. at 648. Second, it must set forth facts or law

of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Id. Courts

have generally distilled three major grounds justifying reconsideration: 1) an intervening

change in the controlling law, 2) the availability of new evidence, and 3) the need to correct

clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634

F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal.1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d

514 (9th Cir. 1987); Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516

U.S. 1029 (1995); Kennedy v. Lubar, 273 F.3d 1293, 1299, fn. 6 (10th Cir. 2001); See

generally C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure, §4478 at 790.

To support a motion for reconsideration based upon newly-discovered evidence, the movant

is obliged to show not only that this evidence was newly discovered or unknown to movant

until after the hearing or dispositive motion was decided, but also that movant could not with

reasonable diligence have discovered and produced such evidence at the hearing or for a

judge’s consideration of a motion. Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Research Instrumental Corp.,

324 F.2d 347, 352 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 923 (1964). If the proffered

evidence was available before resolution of a motion for summary judgment, then as a matter

of law movant is not entitled to reconsideration based upon that evidence. Frederick S. Wyle

P.C. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1985); Trentacosta v. Frontier Pac. Aircraft

Industries, 813 F.2d 1553, 1557-58 n.4 (9th Cir. 1987).

This Court decided the two dispositive motions on January 22, 2008, nearly

two months before Plaintiff’s counsel filed the subject Motion. The attachment to Plaintiff’s

Motion indicates that Mr. Presutti’s deposition was taken on February 26, 2008 in Phoenix,

Arizona. (docket # 51; Exh. A at 1) Plaintiff’s counsel offers no reason why he did not take

Mr. Presutti’s deposition before filing his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on August

28, 2007 or why he did not seek to take it pursuant to Rule 56(f), FED.R.CIV.P., after reading

Mr. Presutti’s affidavit, docket # 35; Exh. C, in early October last year. Plaintiff’s counsel

has also not demonstrated why he could not have discovered with reasonable diligence Mr.

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 52 Filed 03/25/08 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 -

Presutti, a named party, taken his deposition and produced any favorable testimony before

the Court issued its 18-page order denying the dispositive motions. Engelhard Industries,

Inc., 324 F.2d at 352. Even if Plaintiff’s counsel had done so in a timely fashion, the result

may have been the same, i.e., credibility issues are usually for the trier of fact, after the

parties and the Court negotiated the complexities of the “Sham-Affidavit” Rule. Adler v.

Fed. Republic of Nigeria, 107 F.3d 720, 728 (9th Cir. 1997) (prior to disregarding

contradictory affidavits, a trial court “‘must make a factual determination that the

contradiction was actually a sham’” (citation omitted); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County,

5 F.3d at 1264 (contradictory affidavit not automatically disregarded); Darnell v. Target

Stores, 16 F.3d 174 (7th Cir. 1994). Parties do not get two bites at the proverbial apple or a

dispositive motion without making the requisite showing. Absent good cause shown, Plaintiff

had ten (10) days from January 22, 2008 to seek reconsideration. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) Thus, the

Motion will be denied as untimely and good cause has not been shown.

Plaintiff’s claims that Mr. Presutti’s affidavit was allegedly filed in bad faith

contrary to Rule 56(g), FED.R.CIV.P., or, more seriously, warrants a referral to the State Bar

of Arizona and/or to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution for perjury or

making a false statement are premature and will abide by the trial of this case.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, docket # 51, is

DENIED as untimely and without a showing of good cause. 

Dated this 24th day of March, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02887-LOA Document 52 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 3