Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00710/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00710-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Injunctive/Declaratory Relief

---

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

 Plaintiff’s motion is entitled “Motion for New Trial.” (Doc. 21). The essence of

Plaintiff’s motion, however, is that the Court erred in granting Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss. (See Doc. 19). The Court therefore treats Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for

reconsideration.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric J. Skinner, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company;

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

Incorporated (MERS), 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-CV-710-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.1

 (Doc. 21). For the

reasons stated below, Plaintiff’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,

Case 2:11-cv-00710-GMS Document 22 Filed 01/12/12 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 -

Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va. 1983)). Rather, such arguments should be directed to the

court of appeals. Sullivan v. Faras–RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 309 (D. Ariz. 1992).

Plaintiff raises no argument in his motion for reconsideration that he did not raise earlier.

(See Doc. 21). Instead, Plaintiff essentially asks the court to rethink its decision. (Id.).

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is therefore denied.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Court erred by not granting his request for oral

argument. (Doc. 21 at 12). The Court did not grant oral argument, however, because the

Court determined that oral argument would not aid in its decision. See Lake at Las Vegas

Investors Group v. Pac. Malibu Dev., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.

21) is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action.

DATED this 12th day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00710-GMS Document 22 Filed 01/12/12 Page 2 of 2