Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04756/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04756-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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

Leslie E. Orman,

Petitioner,

v. 

Central Loan Administration & Reporting, 

et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-04756-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On August 30, 2019, Petitioner Leslie Orman filed a “Response and Motion to 

Strike Respondents’ Pleadings As Frivolous and Motion for Confirmation of Arbitration 

Award.” (Doc. 19.) On September 5, 2019, the Court issued an order that, inter alia, 

denied Petitioner’s motion to strike because Petitioner did “not identify any statute or rule 

that would authorize her motion to strike, nor does she suggest that Respondents’ motions 

are prohibited (or not authorized) by statute, rule, or court order. Petitioner’s filing offers 

only arguments as to why the motions should be denied, not as to why they should be 

struck.” (Doc. 21 at 1-2.)

Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying her 

motion to strike. (Doc. 28.) 

“Motions to reconsider are appropriate 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, 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 29 Filed 09/30/19 Page 1 of 2
- 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

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

Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s earlier motion, the September 5, 2019 order, 

and the motion for reconsideration. Based on that review, the Court finds no basis to 

reconsider its prior ruling. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 

28) is denied.

Dated this 30th day of September, 2019.

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 29 Filed 09/30/19 Page 2 of 2