Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00611/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00611-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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

Douglas A. Haviland, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TD Ameritrade Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00611-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

 This case shows how it risks unfairness and waste of the court’s work to let parties 

hold back on motions and then try again with something left out the first time. The 

motion is turned into a mere scouting expedition for the real fight to come. 

 In this case the parties briefed their cross-motions to confirm or vacate Plaintiff’s 

FINRA arbitration award to the full extent they wanted. (Doc. 1, 14.) The Court labored 

through those briefs and exhibits and gave its considered ruling on June 25, 2015, which 

enforced the Arbitration Award in part and denied enforcement in part. (Doc. 29, 30.) 

 Plaintiff then filed his Motion for Reconsideration to Amend Judgment (Doc. 31), 

with new arguments and documents and no justification for not having presented them 

before. The Motion could have been denied then, but with an excess of latitude for 

Plaintiff, who comes here without counsel, the Court ordered a response. (Doc. 32.) 

After a full Response, Reply, and supplemental Response ordered by the Court, the 

Motion for Reconsideration was granted and a new judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff 

(Doc. 44, 45). The Court labored through those new briefs and exhibits in turn to reach 

its new conclusion based on what was there presented. 

Case 2:15-cv-00611-NVW Document 64 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

 Next it was Defendant’s turn to file a Motion for Reconsideration presenting new 

arguments left out of both its original Response and its supplemental Response ordered 

by the Court. (Doc. 46.) In normal circumstances, the rehearing would have been denied 

without reaching the merits. But in this case both parties were trying a replay on new 

evidence or argument, so it would be unfair to allow one but not the other the same 

indulgence. The Court ordered a Response and Reply, and Defendant’s Motion for 

Reconsideration is now ready for ruling. 

 The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration and reinstate the 

original judgment (Doc. 30) for two reasons. First, the Court concludes it was an abuse 

of discretion to allow Plaintiff to file his Motion for Reconsideration with no justification 

for having held back. The unwisdom and the unfair burden of that indulgence have 

proved themselves. Second, even if all the later briefing is considered, the original 

judgment in this case proves correct. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 46) is granted, and order and Judgment of August 19, 2015, are vacated (Doc. 44, 

45). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Judgment of June 25, 2015, is reinstated 

(Doc. 30). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff 

Douglas A. Haviland and against Defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc., confirming the 

Arbitration Award to the extent, and only to the extent, that TD Ameritrade must 

continue to make good faith efforts to transfer to Haviland a certificate recognizing 

ownership in his name of the 75,000 Bancorp X106 shares currently held by the 

Depository Trust Company. The Clerk shall terminate this case. 

 Dated this 12th day of February, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00611-NVW Document 64 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 2