Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01980-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DAVID K. EVERSON and PATRICIA M.

EVERSON, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

DAVID D. EVERSON, et al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1980-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs David

K. Everson and Patricia M. Everson pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Dkt. # 54. Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration “is appropriate ‘if the

district 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.’” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor 417 F.3d 1060, 1064 (9th Cir. 2005)

(quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

1993)). 

Upon review of Plaintiffs’ arguments in light of the record and the Court’s previous

Order, the Court denies the Motion. Here, Plaintiffs have not presented the Court with any

newly discovered evidence, nor have they demonstrated that its order and judgment was

somehow manifestly unjust. Finally, Plaintiffs do not cite any intervening change in the

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 58 Filed 03/24/10 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 -

controlling law that suggest that the Estate of Louis D. Schaeffer committed the wrongful

acts alleged in the Amended Complaint. 

The crux of Plaintiffs’ argument in their Motion appears to be that the Court erred

when it held that there is “nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Schaeffer brought an

action for a stablemen’s lien, knowing that there was a ‘complete defense.’” See Dkt. # 53

at 4. (citing Alexander v. Robertson, 882 F.2d 421, 424 (9th Cir. 1989)) Plaintiffs now allege

that there was a complete defense because the Everson Defendants brought the stablemen’s

lien fourteen days after requesting payment, rather than waiting twenty days. Arizona

Revised Statute § 3-1295(A), which Plaintiffs incorrectly cite as § 3-2195(A), provides, in

pertinent part: 

A person who furnishes pasture, feed or other services for

livestock on the premises of that person has a lien on the stock

for the amount of the charges that are due and unpaid. A person

having such lien may retain the stock until the charges are paid.

If possession continues for twenty days after the charges accrue,

and the charges have not been paid, the person retaining

possession of the stock may perfect the amount of the lien by

filing an action in either superior court or justice court,

according to the amount in controversy, in the jurisdiction of the

holder of the stock.

While the Everson Defendants sent a letter indicating the amount due only fourteen days

before bringing the lien, there is no evidence that the charges had not accrued before that

time. Moreover, the undisputed record provides that twenty days after the Everson

Defendants sent the letter that provided the amount owed for the care of Plaintiffs’ horses,

Plaintiffs had made no effort to pay the amount that was allegedly due.

In addition, it is undisputed that Mr. Schaeffer did not bring the justice court action,

the Everson Defendants did that pro se. Mr. Schaeffer was retained to represent the Everson

Defendants approximately a month after the Everson Defendants sent Plaintiffs the letter

outlining the amount owed. Nevertheless, even if Plaintiffs have presented facts establishing

that they have a complete defense to the stablemen’s lien, they do not present evidence

establishing that Mr. Schaeffer knew that this was a complete defense. 

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 58 Filed 03/24/10 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 -

Plaintiffs also contend that the Estate’s reply brief was untimely under Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 56.1(d). By failing to object prior to the Court’s consideration of the Motion

for Summary Judgment, however, Plaintiffs waived any objection. Moreover, Plaintiffs fail

to explain how they were prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of the Estate’s Reply. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 54)

is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Oral Telephonic Argument

on the Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. # 57) is DENIED as moot. 

DATED this 24th day of March, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01980-GMS Document 58 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3