Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01316/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-01316-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 625
Nature of Suit: Drug Related Seizure of Property
Cause of Action: 21:881 Forfeiture Property-Drugs

---

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

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

$229,850.00 in U.S. Currency,

Defendant. 

Robert and Debra Osborne, 

Claimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 13-1316-TUC-CRP

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying

Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 28). On September 25, 2014, the Court denied Claimants’ Motion

to Dismiss which was based on Claimants’ argument that the Complaint in this matter was

untimely filed. Although the Court agreed with Claimants that the Complaint was untimely

filed by one day, the Court determined that the doctrine of equitable tolling properly applied

to excuse the late filing. (Doc. 27). 

Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the discretion of the

court. See Barber v. State of Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994). “Motions to

reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances[.]” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner,

909 F.supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

Case 4:13-cv-01316-CRP Document 29 Filed 10/20/14 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 -

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

controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)

(citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

Cir. 1993)). Motions for reconsideration should not be used for the purpose of requesting

the court “‘to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’”

Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1352 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)); see also Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group,

Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 308-09 (D.Ariz. 1992) (same). Moreover, the Rules of Practice of the

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, state that: “No motion for reconsideration of

an Order 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. Failure to comply with this subsection

may be grounds for denial of the motion.” LRCiv 7.2(g).

Claimants take issue with the Court’s conclusion that equitable tolling excused the

government’s delay in this case. Although Claimants agree with the Court’s statement of the

standard for equitable tolling, they argue that the Court misapplied the standard in this case.

As Claimants have recognized, a party is entitled to equitable tolling where “he shows ‘(1)

that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance

stood in his way’ and prevented the timely filing.” Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631, 649

(2010) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005)). (See Motion for

Reconsideration, pp. 1-2) (citing September 25, 2014 Order, p. 17). Claimant’ Motion for

Reconsideration focuses on their position that the government waited until what it

determined was the last day to file the Complaint. According to Claimants, such conduct

fails to establish good faith or diligence on the government’s part. Claimants contend that

the government failed to make a showing that “circumstances arose requiring last minute

compliance.” (Motion for Reconsideration, p. 2). 

In denying Claimants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court specifically recognized

Claimants’ argument that the government did not have to wait to file the Complaint until

what it thought was the last day. (See Order, p. 19 (citing Reply (Doc. 20), p. 7)). The Court

Case 4:13-cv-01316-CRP Document 29 Filed 10/20/14 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 -

pointed out that had “this Court adopted the government’s position, the Complaint would

have been timely.” (Order, p.19). In sum, the Court held that “[g]iven the government’s

diligence and the extraordinary circumstance of the unsettled law on this issue,...the

government is entitled to equitable tolling.” (Id.) 

Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration essentially requests that the Court “‘rethink

what the [C]ourt ha[s] already thought through–rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife,

909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc., 99 F.R.D. at 101). As such, the Court

declines to reconsider its September 25, 2014 determination. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28) is DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of October, 2014.

Case 4:13-cv-01316-CRP Document 29 Filed 10/20/14 Page 3 of 3