Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00138-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

David Allen, a married man, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Quest Online, LLC, an Arizona Limited

Liability Company, et. Al. , 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-138-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are: Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint (Doc. 176),

and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration (Doc. 186). For the reasons stated below,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is granted. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.

In light of the Court permitting Mr. Allen to withdraw his self-designation as a public figure

as amended from his earlier complaint, the Court will revise the scheduling order as further

set forth below.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is granted. Although not much has been added to the

trade libel and civil conspiracy claims, proposed counts four and five, sufficient pleadings

have been made to defeat a motion to dismiss at this stage of the litigation. To the extent that

Plaintiff adds a count for fraudulent misrepresentation, the claim is barely pleaded with

sufficient particularity as is required by the rule. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) (“[i]n alleging fraud

or mistake, a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.”) It

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 189 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

will, therefore, not be dismissed as failing to state a claim. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to

Amend is granted. Plaintiff will file an amended complaint in the form of that proposed.

The deadlines for disclosing experts and opinions, together with responses and rebuttals will

be extended as follows. 

1. The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and complete

expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure no later than April 6, 2012.

2. Responding party shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as required

by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than May 11, 2012.

3. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than June 1, 2012.

Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by initial experts. 

No other deadline shall be changed. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Motions for

reconsideration are disfavored. Nor should such motions ask the Court to “rethink what the

court has already thought through–rightly or wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32

F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). That is all that Plaintiff’s Motion for

Reconsideration does. It is, therefore, denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 176) is granted and Plaintiff is directed to

immediately file his proposed Amended Complaint.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 186) is denied.

3. The following discovery deadlines are extended as follows:

a. The party with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide full and

complete expert disclosures as required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure no later than April 6, 2012.

b. Responding party shall provide full and complete expert disclosures as

required by Rule 26(a)(2)(A)-(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than May

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 189 Filed 02/16/12 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 -

11, 2012.

c. Rebuttal expert disclosures, if any, shall be made no later than June 1, 2012.

Rebuttal experts shall be limited to responding to opinions stated by initial experts.

d. All other deadlines in the Case Management Order will remain the same.

DATED this 16th day of February, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00138-GMS Document 189 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 3