Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01434/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01434-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

Pasquale Labate, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Casa Grande, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-1434-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration of the order

dismissing this case. (Doc. 25). For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.

BACKGROUND

This case was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on November 17, 2011.

The background facts in the case and the reasons for the dismissal are provided in the

dismissal order. (Doc. 21).

DISCUSSION

Under Rule 59(e), a motion for reconsideration may be granted only on one of four

grounds, “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the

judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable

evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice or 4) there is an intervening

change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and emphasis omitted). Motions for reconsideration are

Case 2:11-cv-01434-GMS Document 26 Filed 12/14/11 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 -

disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

briefs and arguments. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d

918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the

court has already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32

F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff states that he has new witnesses prepared to testify on his behalf. (Doc. 25).

His suit was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; he offers no argument

suggesting that jurisdiction was in fact proper. He brings no argument pursuant to any of the

four grounds upon which an order may be reconsidered under Rule 59(e). Should he continue

to file frivolous motions, he will be subject to sanctions.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 25) is

denied. This case is to remain closed.

DATED this 14th day of December, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01434-GMS Document 26 Filed 12/14/11 Page 2 of 2