Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02430/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02430-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

In addition, the Court notes that the Plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal, and that

the matter is currently pending before the Federal Circuit.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James D. Murphey, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

TPS Enterprises, an Arizona general

partnership; Patrick J. Simeri and Pier

Simeri, husband and wife; Creative

Products, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and

Adapto, Inc., an Arizona corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2430-PHX-MHM

ORDER

The Plaintiff, James D. Murphey, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this

Court’s September 21, 2007 Order. (Dkt. #79). The Motion for Reconsideration, however,

was not filed within ten days “after the date of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the

motion” as required by L.R.Civ. 7.2(g). It was filed October 22, 2007, and challenges an

Order issued on September 21, 2007. (Dkt. #79, 74). The Plaintiff has not shown good

cause for the Court to consider the Motion despite the untimely filing.1

 L.R.Civ. 7.2(g).

Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient rationale for reconsideration

in this case. Reconsideration is appropriate where: “(1) There are material differences in fact

or law from that presented from that presented to the Court and, at the time of the Court’s

Case 2:04-cv-02430-MHM Document 85 Filed 06/27/08 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 -

decision, the party moving for reconsideration could not have known of the factual or legal

differences through reasonable diligence; (2) There are new material facts that happened after

the Court’s decision; (3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or enacted after

the Court’s decision; or (4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed

to consider material facts that were presented to t he Court before the Court’s decision. No

motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any oral or written argument made in

support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Motorola Inc. v. J.B. Rogers Mechanical

Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). The Plaintiff has failed to satisfy this

standard. Motions for reconsideration are not to be used for the purpose of asking a court “to

rethink what the court ha[s] already thought through — rightly or wrongly.” Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 

 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED denying the Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. #79). 

DATED this 27th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-02430-MHM Document 85 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 2