Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01071-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

Dr. Guenter Stetter, a citizen of the

foreign state of Germany, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Blackpool, LLC, an Arizona limited

liability company; John R. Bickley IV, a

citizen of Arizona; Burton D. Gould, a

citizen of Hawaii; thinkorswim, Inc., a

Delaware corporation; Wells Fargo

Bank, National Association; and Bank of

Hawaii, National Association, 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1071-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court entered a temporary restraining order (Dkt. #12) and a preliminary

injunction (Dkt. #17) in July 2009 based in part on preliminary factual determinations that

Plaintiff provided $350,000 to Defendants with the understanding that he was entering into

an asset management agreement with Blackpool, LLC, that he would have the opportunity

to approve any investments before they were made, and that he would receive regular

accountings of his investments. On August 7, 2009, the Court entered an order denying

Defendant Gould’s motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Dkt. #32.

Gould has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Dkt. #39. Plaintiff has

filed a response. Dkt. #47. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 63 Filed 10/15/09 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 -

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). 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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1);

see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order

is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2. Nor should

reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis.

See id.; Nw. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir.

1988).

Gould presents evidence purportedly showing that Plaintiff gave Blackpool the

$350,000 not pursuant to an asset management agreement, but as an equity investment in the

company as shown by Plaintiff being paid $2,500 per month as consideration for his

investment. Dkt. ##39-1, 41. Gould asserts that evidence showing an equity investment

previously was not available to him (Dkt. #39 at 2), but this assertion is belied by the record.

In a letter to Plaintiff dated March 31, 2009, Gould stated that he understood Plaintiff had

been paid interest on his monies as “part of the consideration for [his] investment” in

Blackpool. Dkt. #20 at 13. In another letter to Plaintiff dated April 28, 2009, Gould noted

that Plaintiff “had already been paid the $2500 interest” which “was part of the consideration

for his investment.” Id. at 8-9. In light of these letters, the evidence purportedly showing

an equity investment is not “newly discovered evidence” sufficient to support Gould’s

motion for reconsideration. 

Gould asserts that the continuance of the injunction prevents Blackpool from paying

rent and other expenses and therefore will contribute to the ruination of the company.

Dkt. #39 at 5. Gould has not shown that any harm he or Blackpool will suffer as a result of

the injunction outweighs the likely irreparable harm Plaintiff will suffer absent injunctive

relief. See Dkt. ##12 at 2, 17 at 2.

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 63 Filed 10/15/09 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Burton Gould’s motion for reconsideration

(Dkt. #39) is denied.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-01071-DGC Document 63 Filed 10/15/09 Page 3 of 3