Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01000/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01000-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael Edward Haskins and Barbara Ann

Haskins, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Brian T. Moynihan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1000-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Plaintiffs Michael Haskins and Barbara Haskins have filed several motions, which are

currently pending before the Court: (1) Motion for Clarification re: How Much Time

Remains for Service (Doc. 55), (2) Motion for Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Petition for

Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 55), (3) Motion to

Extend Time to Serve Defendants: Mary Haggerty and Michael R. Zarro Jr., (Doc. 55) and

(4) Motion for Stay of All Non-Judicial Proceedings (Doc. 56). The Court denies all

motions.

Regarding the time remaining for service, the Court directs Plaintiffs to the Court’s

July 6 Order granting certain Defendants’ motion to quash service (Doc. 44) and to the

Court’s August 19 Amended Order denying Plaintiffs’ request for a TRO (Doc. 54). In the

July 6 Order, the Court informed Plaintiffs that they had until August 28, 2010 to effect

service of the initial complaint on R.K. Arnold, Angelo Mazilo, Brian T. Moynihan, and

Case 2:10-cv-01000-GMS Document 58 Filed 08/23/10 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 -

James Taylor. If Plaintiffs choose not to serve these Defendants by that date, Plaintiffs’

initial complaint will be terminated. The Court’s August 19 Amended Order referenced the

proposed second amended complaint. Should Plaintiffs seek to proceed with their second

amended complaint, the August 19 Order directed Plaintiffs to file the second amended

complaint (not simply to lodge it) with the Court and then to serve it in accordance with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and any other applicable rules.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to extend time for service is without merit. Plaintiffs

seek extra time to serve Mary Haggerty and Michael R. Zarro Jr., but those individuals were

not listed as Defendants in Plaintiffs’ initial complaint, which is the only complaint currently

pending before the Court. Although Ms. Haggerty and Mr. Zarro are listed as Defendants

in the proposed second amended complaint, Plaintiffs have not yet properly filed the second

amended complaint. Plaintiffs cannot properly serve Ms. Haggerty and Mr. Zarro until the

proposed second amended complaint is filed with the Court.

As Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and motion for stay of non-judicial

proceedings make essentially the same arguments and seek the same relief, the Court

considers the motions together as one motion for reconsideration. A motion for

reconsideration will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts

or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with

reasonable diligence.” L. R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945

(9th Cir. 2003). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for

reconsideration.” See Ross v. Arpaio, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008)

(citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988)). Nor is a

motion for reconsideration a proper method to “ask the court to rethink what the court had

already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d

1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (internal quotations omitted).

Plaintiffs have not presented any argument, new or otherwise, that would incline the

Court to rethink its denial of a TRO. As the Court previously explained, “[c]orporate

officers and directors are generally shielded from liability for acts done in good faith on

Case 2:10-cv-01000-GMS Document 58 Filed 08/23/10 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 -

behalf of the corporation” unless they commit “intentionally harmful or fraudulent conduct,”

see Albers v. Edelson Technology Partners L.P., 201 Ariz. 47, 52, 31 P.3d 821, 826 (Ct. App.

2001), or unless the corporation is the “alter ego or business conduit of a person, and . . . to

observe the corporation would work an injustice[,]” Ize Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. v. Scalia, 118

Ariz. 439, 442, 577 P.2d 725, 728 (Ct. App. 1978). Although Plaintiffs maintain in their

motions that the individual defendants, who are merely officers of various corporations, are

liable, Plaintiffs point to no facts alleged in any complaint that would establish individual

liability. As the Court previously explained, Plaintiffs may, if they choose, seek leave to file

a third amended complaint either to allege facts supporting claims of individual liability or

to assert claims against the corporations that were involved with the alleged loan transaction.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the following motions are DENIED: (1)

Motion for Clarification re: How Much Time Remains for Service (Doc. 55); (2) Motion for

Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Petition for Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining

Order (“TRO”) (Doc. 55); (3) Motion to Extend Time to Serve Defendants: Mary Haggerty

and Michael R. Zarro Jr., (Doc. 55); and (4) Motion for Stay of All Non-Judicial Proceedings

(Doc. 56). 

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01000-GMS Document 58 Filed 08/23/10 Page 3 of 3