Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00099/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00099-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment

---

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

Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Phoenix, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-0099-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaint iff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #37). For the reasons set forth

below, the Court will deny the motion.

The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its order granting summary

judgment, see Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994), but motions for

reconsideration are disfavored and should not ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See

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

Plaintiff argues that the Court incorrectly construed and applied Arizona law

concerning the level of deference t o be afforded municipal decisions. The Court’s

standard was based on relevant Arizona cases. The Court acknowledged that Arizona

courts have not adopted a single, clear standard, but concluded that the cases reflect a

substantial level of deference to city decisions. Applying this Ariz ona law, the Court

concluded that summary judgment should be granted to the Cit y in this case unless

Plaintiffs presented facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the City acted

fraudulently, in bad faith, or with an unquestionable or palp able abuse of discretion.

Case 2:04-cv-00099-DGC Document 38 Filed 12/19/05 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff identifies several alleged factual errors in the Court’s order, but the Court still

concludes that Plaintiff has not satisfied this standard.

First, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s assertion that PVC and vitrified clay pipe

are essentially equivalent. Plaintiff presents various factual assertions as to why PVC pipe

is superior. T hese facts do not alter the Court’s conclusion. The Court did not base its

prior decision on the equivalence of the products; the Court simply assumed that a

reasonable municipality could choose either product.

Second, Plaintiff disp ut es t he City’s three proffered reasons for banning PVC pipe.

The factual disputes raised by Plaintiff, which were presented in the parties’ original

briefing, do not alter the Court’s conclusion. Plaintiff has not presented sufficient

evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that the Cit y acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or

with an unquestionable abuse of discretion.

Third, Plaintiff notes that the City did not establish three independent “committees.”

The Court agrees that its terminology was incorrect. The City established one committee

and retained t wo consultants. The City relied on analyses by these three entities to

support its ban on PVC pipe. Regardless of t he t erminology, the Court continues to

conclude that Plaint iff has not presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact

to conclude that the City acted fraudulently, in bad faith, or with an unquestionable abuse

of discretion.

Plaintiff complains that the Court failed to “look behind” the City explanation – to

hold a trial on whet her the City’s decision was proper. But it is just such an inquiry into

the actions of municipalities that t he deferential Arizona standard is designed to avoid. As

noted in the Court’s earlier order, cities are both authorized and better equipp ed to make

these decisions t han courts. Courts should intervene only when things have gone

seriously awry, not simply when a p arty of a court thinks the city made the wrong decision.

Plaintiff’s motion largely restates other arguments p reviously made to the Court.

As noted above, a motion for reconsideration is not the place to re-argue p revious

assertions. 

Case 2:04-cv-00099-DGC Document 38 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion of Plaintiff Uni-Bell PVC Pipe

Association for Reconsideration (Doc. #37) is denied.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-00099-DGC Document 38 Filed 12/19/05 Page 3 of 3