Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00054/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Van Go LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Deborah D. Potts, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-16-00054-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order denying 

their Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 20, Mot.). Because the Court will deny the Motion, the 

Court did not await a Response from Plaintiff. Motions for reconsideration should be 

granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district court 

“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 

decision 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). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 

reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 

1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 

evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 

litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor 

may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or 

Case 2:16-cv-00054-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 

F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). 

 As Defendants present no newly discovered evidence or any intervening change in 

controlling law, the Court construes their Motion as one based on the assertion that the 

Court has committed clear error in denying their Motion to Dismiss. Defendants 

challenge the Court’s finding that the allegations support an inference that Plaintiff’s 

delayed discovery of the alleged fraud was reasonable. Defendants argue that the Court 

conflates “Plaintiff” with “Showcase Honda,” and the focus should be when Showcase 

discovered the alleged fraud, not the Plaintiff. (Mot. at 2.) The Court is unpersuaded by 

Defendants’ argument. In the Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, the Court cites 

Plaintiff’s allegations that Mrs. Potts’s concealment may have prevented Showcase from 

discovering the alleged fraud. The Court then concludes that this allegation supports the 

inference that Plaintiff’s delayed discovery was reasonable. Whether Plaintiff (as 

assignee of Showcase’s rights) or Showcase discovered the fraud, the Court’s analysis 

and conclusion is the same. 

 Defendants further challenge the Court’s conclusion that Arizona’s economic loss 

rule does not apply in this case. Defendants argue that the parties have a contract and, 

citing Flagstaff Affordable Housing Limited Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 

P.3d 664 (Ariz. 2010), Arizona’s economic loss rule applies. (Mot. at 5–9.) As stated in 

the Court’s Order denying the Motion to Dismiss, whether there is a contract between the 

parties need not be decided. In consideration of both contract and tort law policies, as 

instructed by the Arizona Supreme Court in Flagstaff, this case is not a situation where 

Arizona’s economic loss rule applies. The Court directly addressed the balance of 

Defendants’ arguments in its Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and will not 

re-address them here. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:16-cv-00054-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

 IT IS ORDERED denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 20). 

 Dated this 27th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable John J. Tuchi 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00054-JJT Document 22 Filed 06/27/16 Page 3 of 3