Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00597/USCOURTS-azd-4_06-cv-00597-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Blair Lindquist,

Plaintiff, 

v.

Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, et

al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. CV 06-597-TUC-FRZ

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration and motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of a portion

of the Court’s Order addressing standing issues previously raised in Defendants’ motion to

dismiss. 

 As a threshold matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff makes arguments in his motion

for reconsideration based on case law and a treatise that he failed to cite in his original

response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The new authority cited by Plaintiff was readily

available long before Plaintiff filed any response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and

Plaintiff gives no justification for his failure to cite this authority in his original response to

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff proceeding in this manner is improper as it forces

both the Court and the parties to expend additional time and resources revisiting issues that

should have been addressed previously. See Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229

F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)(granting a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 61 Filed 04/07/08 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 -

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources

. . . [a] motion [for reconsideration] may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence

for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the

litigation.”)(internal quotes and citation omitted); 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179

F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)(same); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir.

2003)(same); Shalit v. Coppe, 182 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 1999)(same); School Dist. No.

1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993)(same);

LRCiv 7.2(g)(same).

“The law is clear that reconsideration is appropriate only in very limited

circumstances.” Shalit, 182 F.3d at 1132. Indeed, "a motion for reconsideration should not

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d at 665; see also Fuller v. M.G.

Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991)(a motion for reconsideration should not used

to reargue issues the court had already considered and rejected). 

Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court finds

no basis to depart from its original decision. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and motion for leave are denied. 

DATED this 7th day of April, 2008.

Case 4:06-cv-00597-FRZ Document 61 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2