Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cv-00595/USCOURTS-azd-4_02-cv-00595-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dana Lynn Mehen, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Delta Airlines Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 02-595-TUC-CKJ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's "Motion for Objection to Order dated 10/18/05 and

Doc's #157, 174, 176" which is simply a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons stated

below, the motion is denied.

A denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See

School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)

The relevant standard for reconsideration comes from Rule 60(b), which "provides for

reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment;

or (6) 'extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief." Id. at 1263. A motion for

reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already

thought through-rightly or wrongly." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should

Case 4:02-cv-00595-CKJ Document 188 Filed 12/19/05 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 -

be directed to the court of appeals. Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605

F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.Ill. 1983). 

After a review of the relevant facts and law as well as Plaintiff's motion, the Court, in its

discretion, declines to reconsider the previous rulings. The Court notes that the "Order dated

10/18/2005" explained why this case would proceed as a bench trial, and Plaintiff has not

submitted anything to undermine this finding. Further, the Court's 10/19/05 minute entry

specifically said it was being issued for "purely administrative purposes" as the three docket

entries at issue were three motions (which had nothing to do with the substantive issues in

the case) filed by Defendants (a motion to continue, a motion to appear telephonically, and

a motion to submit a supplemental document) which were incorrectly listed as pending as the

documents were moot given the procedural posture of the case. Lastly, a review of this

Court's Orders and the entire record shows that Plaintiff's claim of procedural irregularities

and deprivation of her due process rights is totally without merit. Accordingly, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

Case 4:02-cv-00595-CKJ Document 188 Filed 12/19/05 Page 2 of 2