Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02164/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02164-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Sonja Kajander,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, an Arizona municipal

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-02164-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Vacate 3/9/11 Judgment on March 21, 2011.

(Doc. 67.) Counsel moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to vacate the

Court’s judgment (Doc. 66) entered on the Court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Defendant

(Doc. 65). Counsel seems to make two arguments for vacating the award: 1) Defendant’s

Memorandum in Support of an award of attorneys’ fees was untimely and 2) the judgment

should be against Plaintiff’s counsel, not Plaintiff.

“A Rule 59 motion should not be granted ‘unless the district court is presented with

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

controlling law.’” McQuillion v. Duncan, 343 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9 Cir. 2003)(quoting

McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999)(en banc)). The Court ordinarily

will deny a motion for reconsideration absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of

new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier

Case 2:09-cv-02164-JAT Document 70 Filed 11/07/11 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 -

with reasonable diligence. L.R.Civ.P. 7.2(g). No motion for reconsideration may repeat any

oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that

resulted in the Order for which the party seeks reconsideration. Id. Repeating arguments in

a motion to reconsider may be grounds for denying the motion. Id.

The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s counsel that it erred in awarding attorneys’ fees

to Defendant and against counsel as a sanction. The Court finds that Defendant’s

Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 62) was timely. But the

Court will grant the Rule 59(e) motion to the limited extent that the Court will order an

Amended Judgment that clarifies that the Judgment for Attorney Fees is against Plaintiff’s

counsel, not Plaintiff. 

In its March 9, 2011 Order (Doc. 65), the Court awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount

of $17,334 and non-taxable costs of $886.92 to Defendant against Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr.

Weinstein. But for some reason, the Clerk entered judgment against Plaintiff. Defendant

City of Phoenix joins with Mr. Weinstein in seeking to correct this error. (Doc. 68.)

Because the award of attorneys’ fees and costs was against Mr. Weinstein, not

Plaintiff, the Judgment should reflect that.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Plaintiff’s counsel’s Rule 59(e) Motion (Doc. 67) to

the limited extent outlined above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter an Amended

Judgment awarding attorneys’ fees in the amount of $17,334 and non-taxable costs of

$886.92 to Defendant against Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Howard Weinstein, pursuant to the

March 9, 2011 Order. 

DATED this 4th day of November, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02164-JAT Document 70 Filed 11/07/11 Page 2 of 2