Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01182/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01182-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights 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

Antonio M. Aguirre,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Schomac Group, Inc., Schomac Property

Management, Inc.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-1182 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ M otion for Partial Summary Judgment filed

on July 26, 2005. This motion was filed well after the dispositive motion deadline in this

case and in violation of the Court’s August 19, 2004 Case Management Order that permits

only one summary judgment motion unless permission is first obtained from the Court.

Doc. #17 at 3. Nevertheless, the Court agreed in its September 23, 2005 Order to rule on

Defendants’ motion, but construed it as a mislabeled motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s July 6, 2005 Order. Docs. ## 55, 64.

I. Legal Standards.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to

make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See

N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988);

United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Sup p . 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). A motion for

reconsideration of an interlocutory order may be granted if: (1) t he movant makes a

convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts presented to the Court

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 68 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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 -

before t he order was issued; (2) there are newly discovered material facts that the movant

could not have discovered through reasonable diligence before the order was issued;

or (3) material facts have occurred or the law has changed after the order was issued. See

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contrs., Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003)

(discussing various district court local rules regarding motions for reconsideration and

adopting Central District of California’s st andard because it “captures the most common

elements of the various local rules” and “best balances t he competing interests of judicial

accuracy and judicial economy”).

Defendants’ in their motion for reconsideration raise several new arguments that

were not present in either their motion for partial summary judgment or their reply in

support of the motion. Docs. ##42, 54. Defendants’ new argument s include (1) Plaintiff’s

lack of personal knowledge that he was replaced by Brad Rhodes, a lesser qualified nonHispanic; (2) the lack of causal connection between the racial jokes told by Supervisor

Hicks and Plaintiff’s termination by a different sup ervisor a year after the comments were

made; (3) the lack of personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s negative work evaluation allegedly

made in retaliation for an email he sent; and (4) the lack of personal knowledge of Plaintiff’s

statement that non-Hispanic supervisors received more employee help t han Plaintiff.

Doc. # 57. In response to the Court’s denial of summary judgment on t heir mitigation of

damage defense (Doc. #55), Defendants raise a new argument that they are relieved of the

burden to prove the availability of “substantially equivalent jobs” once it has been shown

that the former employee has made no effort to seek emp loy ment. Doc. #57 at 10-11. The

Court will not consider arguments that Defendants failed t o raise in the briefing on their

p rior motion for partial summary judgment. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Sup p . 2d

1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (mot ions for reconsideration are not the place for parties to

make new arguments.) 

II. Analysis.

To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must prove that he was “(1) a member of a

protected class; (2) performing his job in a satisfactory manner; (3) discharged; and (4)

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 68 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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

 “A plaintiff’s verified comp laint may be considered as an affidavit in opposition to

summary judgment if it is based on personal knowledge and set s forth specific facts.”

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132, n.30 (9th Cir. 2000).

- 3 -

rep laced by a [person outside of his protected class] with equal or inferior qualifications.”

Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 1994). The parties do not dispute that

Plaintiff is a member of a protected class or that he was discharged. 

T he Court found in its July 6, 2005 Order that Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence

to create an issue of fact on whether he performed his job in a satisfactory manner. Doc.

#49, Ex. V. Defendants correctly point out that the Court mistakenly stated that

Defendants fired Plaintiff for not performing his job sat isfactorily. Doc. #57 at 3. This

error, however, does not change the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff presented sufficient

evidence t o raise a question of fact on the second element of his prima facie case – that he

was performing his job in a satisfactory manner. Doc. #55. 

The Court also found the fourth prong of Plaintiff’s prima facie case satisfied

because Plaintiff stated in his verified complaint that he was replaced by a non-Hispanic

employee wit h lesser qualifications.1

 Doc. #55. In paragraph 12 of his verified complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that he was replaced by Brad Rhodes, a lesser qualified non-Hispanic.

Defendants did not challenge the admissibility of this statement in either their motion for

partial summary judgment or their reply and therefore cannot challenge the admissibility

now. Construing the evidence in Plaintiff’s favor, t he Court finds that Plaintiff has

presented sufficient evidence to satisfy his prima facie case for discrimination under Title

VII. See Wallis, 26 F.3d at 891.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to create an issue

of fact on whether Defendants’ stated reason for his termination – insubordination – was

pretextual. In its July Order, the Court relied on five statements in Plaintiff’s verified

compliant that might lead a reasonable jury to concluded that Defendants maintained

animus against Plaintiff because of his race. Doc. #55 at 4. Defendants now argue that the

Court erred in relying on these statements because they “are not based on personal

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 68 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

knowledge, are wit hout foundation, and/or are immaterial to plaintiff’s discrimination

claim.” Doc. #57 at 3. But Defendants only challenged one of these statements as

inadmissible in their motion for partial summary judgment. Doc. # 42 at 8 (“Aguirre

admit t ed that he has no personal knowledge of what happened between Hicks and Cossins

Wineke and that he has no personal knowledge about what discipline, if any, was imposed

upon Hicks.”). Even if Defendants are correct in arguing that the Court erred in relying on

Plaintiff’s statement involving Mr. Hicks, the Court ’s conclusion is not altered because the

remaining four statements are sufficient to raise an issue of fact concerning Defendants’

animus towards Plaintiff. See Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Dav is, 225 F.3d 1115, 1127

(9th Cir. 2000) (“The plaintiff is required t o produce very little direct evidence of the

employer’s discriminatory intent to move past summary judgment.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

(Doc. # 57), deemed to be a motion for reconsideration, is denied. 

The Court will schedule a Final Pretrial Conference by separate order.

DATED this 15th day of December, 2005.

 

Case 2:04-cv-01182-DGC Document 68 Filed 12/15/05 Page 4 of 4