Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00444-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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.

Vistoso Partners, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-444-PHX-GMS

ORDER

On January 3, 2012, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in

this action. (Doc. 85). Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

of the Court’s January 3 decision. (Doc. 88). As discussed below, Defendant’s motion is

denied. 

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 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 the instant case, Defendant contends that the Court’s “Conclusions of Law 7, 8, and

9 constitute manifest error.” (Doc. 88 at 1). In essence, however, Defendant’s motion is a

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 89 Filed 01/20/12 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 -

request for the court to rethink what the court has already thought through. (See Doc. 88).

Such requests should be directed to the court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd.,

795 F. Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration

(Doc. 88) is denied. 

DATED this 20th day of January, 2012.

.

Case 2:10-cv-00444-GMS Document 89 Filed 01/20/12 Page 2 of 2