Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02016/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02016-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Betty Aldama,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Elizabeth Hatch, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 05-2016-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Betty Aldama’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for

reconsideration. (Dkt.#18). This motion derives out of the Clerk’s judgment on May 16,

2007, dismissing this matter because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s April

30, 2007 order directing any responsive pleading from Plaintiff to be filed no later than May

11, 2007. (Dkt.#15). The Court directed such a response because of Plaintiff’s failure to

respond to a pending motion to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment grounds filed by the

Defendants. (Dkt.#14). Notably, the motion to dismiss was filed on October 6, 2006;

however, despite ample opportunity to respond, including the opportunity created by this

Court’s April 30, 2007 order, Plaintiff failed to respond. Now, despite Plaintiff’s clear

failure to prosecute this action and to comply with the Court’s orders, Plaintiff moves this

Court to reconsider the judgment and to permit the continuance of this action.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and only appropriate if the court “(1) is

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision

Case 2:05-cv-02016-MHM Document 19 Filed 10/12/07 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 -

was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993), cert.

denied,114 S.Ct. 2742 (1994). Motions for Reconsideration are not the place for parties to

make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252

F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003) (citing Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood

Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to

rethink what it has already thought. Id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d

1112, 1116 (D.Ariz.1998). Accordingly, courts grant such motions only in rare

circumstances. See Sullivan v. Faras-RLS Group, Ltd., 795 F.Supp. 305, 308-09

(D.Ariz.1992).

 Here, Plaintiff makes no argument suggesting that this case qualifies to meet one of the

limited circumstances to support reconsideration. Moreover, Plaintiff makes no argument

that relief of the Court’s judgment is warranted under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.

Rather, Plaintiff appears to assert only that reconsideration is appropriate because she did not

receive the Court’s April 30, 2007 order when it was originally mailed that day. Plaintiff

asserts that she received the Court’s order on May 18, 2007, after the Court had already

entered judgment. Even if this argument falls under one of the limited circumstances

regarding reconsideration, which it does not, any delay in receiving the Court’s order was not

caused by the Court, but by Plaintiff because of her failure to apprise the Court of her change

in address. (Dkt.#16). As such, there is no basis for this Court to reconsider and for relief

of the Court’s judgment.

Accordingly,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for reconsideration. (Dkt.#18).

DATED this 10th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02016-MHM Document 19 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2