Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01426/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01426-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice

---

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

 The Motion for Reconsideration is signed by both Defendant Mobrez and Defendant

Llaneras. (See Doc. 57). Defendant Llaneras, however, is currently represented by counsel,

and her counsel did not sign the Motion for Reconsideration. (See id.). The Court will

therefore consider the motion as one brought solely by Defendant Mobrez. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures LLC, an Arizona

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lisa Jean Borodkin; Daniel Blackert; Asia

Economic Institute LLC; Raymond

Mobrez; Iliana Llaneras; Does 1-10,

inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1426-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On March 1, 2012, the Court issued an Order (Doc. 52) denying Defendants’ Motion

to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Doc. 18) and Motion to Dismiss for Improper

Venue or to Transfer (Doc. 17). On March 20, 2012, Defendant Mobrez1

 submitted the

instant Motion for Reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its March 1 denial

of Defendants’ motions. (Doc. 57). Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if

the Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the

initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling

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

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 60 Filed 04/02/12 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 -

Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what

the court had already thought through, rightly or wrongly.” Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel

Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.1983)).

In their motion for reconsideration, Defendants have not presented new evidence,

identified clear error or manifest injustice, or identified a change in the law. (See Doc. 57).

As Defendants noted in their motions to dismiss, Edward Magedson, Plaintiff’s manager,

sent Defendant an email on July 24, 2009 in which he stated “I am in California, I live here

now.” (Doc. 18-4, Ex. A). This does not change the fact, however, that in April and May

2009, Defendants called Xcentric, an Arizona LLC, at its Arizona phone number multiple

times in alleged furtherance of a malicious lawsuit. Nor does Magedson’s possible California

residency change the fact that Defendants filed the allegedly malicious lawsuit against

Magedson’s Arizona LLC, traveled to Arizona for settlement discussions with Magedson and

sent attorneys to Arizona to depose him. In essence, Defendants’ motion is a request for the

Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through. It is therefore denied.

To be sure, the Court has a strong interest in ensuring that it has subject matter

jurisdiction over this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)(3) (“If the court determines at any

time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); The

Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382 (1884) (holding that a federal court’s

subject-matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any stage of the proceedings, and that the

court may raise this issue sua sponte). Nonetheless, even were the Court to find that

Magedson is now a citizen of California, this would not affect the Court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. The Complaint alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “there is complete diversity among the parties.” (Doc. 55, ¶ 9). For

the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, “an LLC is a citizen of every state of which its

owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894,

899 (9th Cir. 2006). Xcentric is an LLC with only one owner/member, namely CBIC—a

Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Nevada. (See Doc. 21). Even

though Magedson, an alleged California citizen, is CBIC’s sole shareholder, CBIC is a

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 60 Filed 04/02/12 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 -

corporation, not an LLC. And “a corporation is a citizen only of (1) the state where its

principal place of business is located, and (2) the state in which it is incorporated.” Johnson,

437 F.3d 894, 899 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1)). None of the Defendants contend that they

are citizens of Nevada. Consequently the Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 57).

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 60 Filed 04/02/12 Page 3 of 3