Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01502/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01502-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product 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

Manuel Bernal, husband, individually

and on behalf of Kevin Bernal, their

minor son, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Daewoo Motor America, Inc., a

Delaware corporation, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-1502 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Daewoo Motor America, Inc. (“Daewoo America”) asks the Court to reconsider its

recent order denying in part Plaintiffs’ motion to strike their affirmative defenses. Dkt. #35.

Daewoo America argues that Court prematurely decided which law governs this case. 

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2009). Courts in this district have identified four circumstances

where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered

material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial

decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences

through the exercise of reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since

the Court’s initial decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s

Case 2:09-cv-01502-DGC Document 36 Filed 12/03/09 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 -

initial decision, or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to

consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See,

e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz.

2003). 

In their motion to strike, Plaintiffs argued that Daewoo America’s affirmative

defenses should be stricken under Arizona law. See Dkt. #19 at 4-7. In response, Daewoo

America analyzed Arizona’s choice of law rules and argued that Arizona law should not

apply. Dkt. #20 at 3. Plaintiffs responded to this argument in their reply. Dkt. #22 at 3-5.

The choice of law issue was thus clearly presented to the Court for decision. 

Daewoo America never argued, as it does now, that consideration of the choice of law

issue and the motion to strike should be postponed until further discovery is conducted or

additional parties are brought into the case. The Court need not consider these arguments

made for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. Martinez-Vazquez v. INS, 346 F.3d

903, 905 n.5 (9th Cir. 2003).

Daewoo America also argues that the Court should not have considered matters

outside the pleading when deciding the motion to strike. Dkt. #35 at 2. In its response,

however, Daewoo America asked the Court to consider the “most critical information as to

where the accident occurred” – information, it claimed, that was “purposely omitted” from

the complaint. Dkt. #20 at 3. Moreover, even if the Court considered only the specific

allegations in the complaint – that Plaintiffs are residents of Maricopa County, Arizona and

that Daewoo America does business in Arizona – the Court still would have determined that

Arizona law applies. “Arizona courts traditionally have accorded great weight in the

conflicts analysis to the domicile of the tort victim in a personal injury case.” Garcia v. Gen.

Motors Corp., 990 P.2d 1069, 1075-76 (Ariz. App. 1999); see Baroldy v. Ortho Pharm.

Corp., 760 P.2d 574, 580 (Ariz. App. 1988) (holding that, because “plaintiffs are Arizona

domiciliaries,” Arizona law should apply even when the injury did not occur in Arizona, the

conduct causing the injury did not occur in Arizona, and the relationship between the parties

was centered in North Carolina). 

Case 2:09-cv-01502-DGC Document 36 Filed 12/03/09 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Daewoo America’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #35) is

denied.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01502-DGC Document 36 Filed 12/03/09 Page 3 of 3