Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03755/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03755-0/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

1

We do not consider plaintiffs' response to the motion for reconsideration (doc. 21)

as no response was ordered by the court. See LRCiv 7.2(g). 

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Tina M. Crespo; Angelica M. Reyes, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Kujo Investments, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-3755-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendants' motion (doc. 19) asking us to reconsider our Order

(doc. 16) denying their previous motion for reconsideration of our Order dated March 22,

2006, granting plaintiffs an extension of time to serve defendants. We denied the motion for

reconsideration, concluding that defendants failed to comply with the filing deadlines set

forth in LRCiv 7.2(g) ("Absent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be

filed no later than ten (10) days after the filing of the Order.").1

 

Our Order granting the extension of time was entered on March 22, 2006. Defendants

contend that they were not served until June 12, 2006, and then only with the original

Case 2:05-cv-03755-FJM Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Complaint, not the Order granting the motion to extend. Therefore, they claim they were

unable to comply with Rule 7.2(g) filing deadlines. 

Although this may explain why defendants were unable to meet the ten-day deadline,

and possibly excuse failure to file until after the June 12th service date, it does not establish

good cause for failing to file the motion for reconsideration until more that 60 days after

receiving formal notice of the lawsuit. See LRCiv 7.2(g). 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING defendants' motion for reconsideration

(doc. 19).

DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03755-FJM Document 22 Filed 01/10/07 Page 2 of 2