Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02012/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02012-1/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

1

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc. 27) based on Claimant’s

failure to respond to the Motion for Reconsideration. But, as set out above, Claimant was

not allowed to file a response to the motion to reconsider absent an Order from this Court.

L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(2). The Court therefore denies the Motion for Entry of Judgment (Doc.

27).

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

2005 Toyota Sequoia,

VIN:5TDZT38AX5S239010, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2012-PHX-JAT

ORDER

 Plaintiff United States of America (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Strike Claim and

Answer of Mukhtiar Singh on July 14, 2010. (Doc. 21.) The Court denied that Motion on

October 25, 2010, finding Mukhtiar Singh (the “Claimant”) has standing to assert a claim to

the 2005 Toyota Sequoia the Plaintiff seeks to forfeit. (Doc. 23.) Plaintiff filed a Motion to

Reconsider the Court’s Order on November 8, 2010. (Doc. 25.) The Court did not order the

Claimant to file a response to the Motion for Reconsideration. L.R.Civ.P.7.2(g)(2)(“No

response to a motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless

ordered by the Court . . ..”).1

Case 2:09-cv-02012-JAT Document 29 Filed 06/30/11 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 -

I. Legal Standard

Generally, motions for reconsideration are appropriate only if: 1) the movant presents

newly discovered evidence; 2) the Court committed clear error or the initial decision was

manifestly unjust; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law has occurred. School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Motions

for reconsideration are disfavored, and parties should not use them to make arguments not

raised in their original briefs. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, Inc.,

215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D.Ariz.2003)(citing Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988)). Nor should a party file a motion to reconsider

to ask the Court “to rethink what it has already thought.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

“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.”

L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). The Court ordinarily will deny a motion for reconsideration “absent

a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have

been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.

II. Analysis and Conclusion

Plaintiff makes several new arguments in its Motion to Reconsider, primarily

arguments regarding statutory standing and prudential standing. Plaintiff has not indicated

an intervening change in the law since the Court’s Order and offers no reason why it could

not have made these arguments in its original Motion to Strike. As set out above, parties

cannot use motions to reconsider to make arguments not raised in their original briefs.

Motorola, 215 F.R.D. at 582. The Court therefore will not address these new arguments. 

Regarding the Court’s ruling on Claimant’s Article III standing, Plaintiff makes some

of the same arguments it made in the Motion to Strike. To the extent Plaintiff’s Article III

arguments in the motion to reconsider are repetitions of its earlier written arguments in

support of the Motion to Strike, the Court will ignore the repetitions. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1).

The Court further holds that it did not commit clear error in finding that Claimant has Article

III standing in this civil forfeiture action. See, e.g., U.S. v. Real Property Located at 475

Case 2:09-cv-02012-JAT Document 29 Filed 06/30/11 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 -

Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2008)(To demonstrate Article

III standing in a civil forfeiture action a claimant need “demonstrate only a colorable interest

in the forfeited property, for example, by showing actual possession, control, title, or

financial stake.”)(emphasis added). 

Nor does the Court find that it made any other clear legal errors in its October 25,

2010 Order. And allowing Claimant to maintain his claim to the 2005 Toyota Sequoia was

not “manifestly unjust.” Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or

indicated a change in controlling law.

The Court, however, will grant the Motion to Reconsider to a very limited extent to

clarify a portion of its Order, but will not grant any of the relief requested by Plaintiff. On

page 3 of the October 25, 2010 Order, in recounting the background facts, the Court stated

that the criminal defendant “together with his wife, Claimant’s daughter, paid off a large

portion of the loan . . .” (Doc. 23, 3:10-12.) The Court clarifies that the wife to whom the

Court referred in this sentence of its Order is Davinder Kaur, wife of the criminal defendant

Parminder S. Toor, and daughter of the Claimant. So, the Court’s sentence conveys that the

criminal defendant and his wife, Davinder Kaur, paid off a large portion of the car loan and

made payments toward the insurance policy on Claimant’s behalf. 

The Court denies the Motion to Reconsider in all other respects.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25) to the limited

extent set out in this Order and Denying the Motion to Reconsider in all other respects.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Plaintiff’s First Motion for Judgment

Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 27).

DATED this 30th day of June, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02012-JAT Document 29 Filed 06/30/11 Page 3 of 3