Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01921/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01921-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
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 

Kevin Hutson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ME Capital LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-16-1921-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Court dismissed this case on November 15, 2016. Doc. 15. Dismissal was 

based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders and participate in a case 

management conference. Plaintiff has now filed a motion for reconsideration. Doc. 16. 

At the Court’s request, Defendant ME Capital LLC has filed a response. Doc. 18. 

 Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for 

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences 

in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the 

party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the 

exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) material factual events have occurred since the 

Court’s initial decision; (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s 

initial decision; or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed 

to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial 

decision. See, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 

Case 2:16-cv-01921-DGC Document 19 Filed 12/12/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and are not the 

place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest 

Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United 

States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). 

 Plaintiff argues that reconsideration should be granted because his failure to 

participate in the case management conference was due to excusable neglect. Plaintiff 

asserts that he had not yet served Defendants, he was seeking permission to serve them 

by publication, and he “had no reason to believe they would appear in this case or 

cooperate to file a joint case management report.” Doc. 16 at 4-5. This plainly is 

incorrect. Defense counsel attempted to contact Plaintiff repeatedly, spoke with him by 

phone, and sent him letters, including attempts to confer about the case management 

conference. 

 Defense counsel made two calls to Plaintiff on September 26, 2016. Doc. 9 at 1. 

Plaintiff returned the calls on September 27, but stated that he was uneasy discussing the 

case by phone. Defense counsel suggested an in-person meeting at an agreeable location, 

and Plaintiff said he wanted to think about it and would call back in an hour. He never 

called. Id. at 2. 

 Defense counsel called Plaintiff again on October 3 and 4, leaving messages both 

times. Plaintiff called back on October 4, again declined to discuss the case by phone, 

and also declined to meet in person. Id. Defense counsel avows that Plaintiff said “[t]he 

Court cannot require us to meet.” Doc. 18-1 at 3. 

 Defense counsel wrote to Plaintiff on October 5 and included a copy of the Court’s 

order requiring the parties to confer in advance of the case management conference and 

prepare a joint report, and also requiring Plaintiff to initiate these efforts. Doc. 18-1 at 7-

12. The letter offered to meet at defense counsel’s office “or at any other location that 

might be more convenient for you.” Id. at 7. The letter was also emailed to Plaintiff. Id. 

at 6. Defense counsel made several attempts to contact Plaintiff after this letter, and 

Case 2:16-cv-01921-DGC Document 19 Filed 12/12/16 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

finally spoke with him by phone on October 20, 2016. Defense counsel explained that 

the Court’s order required the parties to meet and confer. Plaintiff declined to meet or 

assist in preparing for the case management conference. Defense counsel confirmed this 

conversation in a letter that was mailed and emailed to Plaintiff. Id. at 18-1 at 14-15. 

 In addition to defense counsel’s many efforts to communicate, the Court advised 

Plaintiff of his need to participate in the case management conference. The order setting 

the conference was mailed to Plaintiff by the Clerk on October 12, 2016 (Doc. 10, 

followed by Court-only entry), and mailed again to Plaintiff by defense counsel (Doc. 18-

1 at 7-12). The order was clear: “The parties are directed to meet and confer at least 10 

days before the Case Management Conference.” Doc. 10 at 1. “[T]he parties shall 

develop a joint Case Management Report which contains the information called for in 

section B below.” Id. “The parties shall jointly file the Case Management Report with 

the Clerk not less than seven days before the Case Management Conference.” Id. at 4. 

“It is the responsibility of Plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and preparation of 

the joint Case Management Report.” Id. “[A]ny party that is not represented by counsel 

. . . shall appear and participate in the Case Management Conference.” Id. 

 Furthermore, when Plaintiff failed to respond to a motion to dismiss filed by 

Defendants on September 23, 2016, the Court entered an order directing Plaintiff to file a 

response. Doc. 11. The order specifically advised Plaintiff of his duty to become 

familiar and comply with the relevant rules of procedure. Id. at 1. The order also 

contained this warning: “Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to prosecute this 

action, or if he fails to comply with the rules or any Court order, the Court may dismiss 

the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” 

Id. at 2. 

 Given these communications, orders, and warnings, the Court simply cannot 

accept Plaintiff’s assertion that he “had no reason to believe” he was required to 

cooperate in preparing for the case management conference or to appear at the 

conference. Plaintiff has not shown excusable neglect. 

Case 2:16-cv-01921-DGC Document 19 Filed 12/12/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 Plaintiff also argues that the Court could not exercise jurisdiction in this case 

because Defendants had not been served. Doc. 16 at 5-6. But Plaintiff himself filed a 

notice stating that service had occurred. Doc. 7. Even if Defendants had not been served 

properly, they stated that they were appearing specially and attempted to work with 

Plaintiff in preparing for the case management conference. Parties can participate in 

litigation without waiving their claim that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction, provided 

they have raised that issue appropriately and not forfeited it by subsequent conduct. Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(h). Defendants preserved the issue by filing a motion to dismiss (Doc. 8), 

and the Court did not lack jurisdiction to hold a case management conference in the 

meantime. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 16) is denied. 

 Dated this 12th day of December, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-01921-DGC Document 19 Filed 12/12/16 Page 4 of 4