Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00310/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00310-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

 As the Court noted in its summary judgment order, Plaintiff never said in his

complaint or in his response to the motions for summary judgment that his state law claim

was based on a negligence theory. Doc. 69 at 6, lines 21-27. Nonetheless, the Court gave

“Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt” and analyzed his claim as if he had brought a negligence

claim. Id. at 7, lines 4-6. Plaintiff has now confirmed he was in fact bringing a negligence

claim.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daimen Irizarry, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

City of Mesa; Town of Gilbert; Maricopa

County; Arizona Department of Public

Safety; John Does 1 through 15, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-310-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of this Court’s order granting summary

judgment to Defendants. Plaintiff’s basis for reconsideration is that this case was based on

a “legal theory of negligence,” and that negligence claims are not appropriate for summary

judgment.1

 Doc. 71.

In the summary judgment order, this Court quoted the Arizona Supreme Court’s

discussion of the elements of a negligence claim as follows: 

The first element, whether a duty exists, is a matter of law for the court to

Case 2:11-cv-00310-JAT Document 72 Filed 11/13/13 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 -

decide. [citation omitted]. The other elements, including breach and causation,

are factual issues usually decided by the jury. [citation omitted]. [However,]

Although breach and causation are factual matters, summary judgment may be

appropriate if no reasonable juror could conclude that the standard of care was

breached or that the damages were proximately caused by the defendant’s

conduct. [citation omitted].

Gipson, 150 P.3d at 230 ¶ 9 & n. 1.

Doc. 69 at 7, n. 6.

In his three paragraph motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff never addresses this case.

To the extent Plaintiff is arguing that merely by impliedly alleging negligence he is entitled

to a jury trial, that argument is not a correct statement of the law and reconsideration on that

theory is denied. Alternatively, to the extent Plaintiff is arguing that there is a disputed issue

of fact that precluded summary judgment, this Court discussed its basis for granting summary

judgment extensively in its Order at Doc. 69, and finds no basis for reconsideration in

Plaintiff’s pending motion.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 71) is denied.

DATED this 13th day of November, 2013.

Case 2:11-cv-00310-JAT Document 72 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 2