Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02060-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

Michael Grady and Jennifer Grady, 

husband and wife,, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Bank of Elmwood; et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV11-2060-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Doc. 50) on May 1, 2012. 

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of portions of the Court’s Order (Doc. 47) disposing of 

their Motion to Amend (Doc. 10). Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Court erred: 1) in 

finding Plaintiffs cannot state claims against TCNB, the purchasing bank, for TILA 

violations committed by the failed bank and 2) in denying Plaintiffs leave to amend to 

state direct TILA claims against TCNB. 

 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, Oregon v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A party should not file a motion to reconsider 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). “No motion for 

reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in support 

of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. 

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 54 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003); L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). The Court 

ordinarily will deny a “motion for reconsideration of an Order 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.” L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g)(1). 

 In their Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiffs do not cite any intervening, 

controlling authority. They direct the Court’s attention to a District of Hawaii case from 

January of 2012. But the Court is not bound by decisions from the District of Hawaii. 

Plaintiffs cite no new authority from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 Basically, Plaintiffs disagree with the Court’s earlier ruling and re-argue points 

they previously made in their Motion to Amend. Parties should not use motions for 

reconsideration to re-argue or to more strongly argue points previously made in the 

original motion. 

 Because Plaintiffs have not cited any intervening, controlling authority and 

because the Court finds it did not clearly err in its April 4, 2012 Order, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 50). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time 

(Doc. 51) to the limited extent that Plaintiffs shall have five (5) days from the date of this 

Order to file a Second Amended Complaint that complies with the Court’s April 4, 2012 

Order (Doc. 47). If Plaintiffs do not file a Second Amended Complaint within that time, 

the Clerk will dismiss this case without further notice for failure to obey a court order. 

 Dated this 21st day of May, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-02060-JAT Document 54 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 2